:marseysneed: incoming: Supreme Court ruled that Republicans did not unlawfully consider race when they drew a congressional district in a way that removed thousands of Black voters :marseyblackpearlclutch:

incoming: Supreme Court ruled that Republicans did not unlawfully consider race when they drew a congressional district in a way that removed thousands of Black voters :marseyblackpearlclutch:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-gop-south-carolina-redistricting-case-rcna127946

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1cytuva/supreme_court_allows_disputed_south_carolina/

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1cyu4aw/supreme_court_finds_no_bias_against_black_voters/

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1cytwlb/supreme_court_sides_with_south_carolina/

https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1cytnak/supreme_court_holds_that_the_sc_gerrymandering/

https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1cytp00/supreme_court_backs_gopdrawn_south_carolina/

https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1cytm86/opinion_thomas_c_alexander_in_his_official/

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Republicans in South Carolina did not unlawfully consider race when they drew a congressional district in a way that removed thousands of Black voters, making it harder for civil rights plaintiffs to bring racial gerrymandering claims.

The court, divided 6-3 on ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, said civil rights group had not done enough to show that legislators were focused on race in drawing the Charleston-area district currently represented by Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican.

While the Supreme Court was considering the case, much more slowly than expected, the lower court that had invalidated the map said it could be used for this year's election.

The justices' ruling will therefore have no immediate impact in South Carolina, but it sets the rules of the road for future redistricting efforts, making it easier for maps to be drawn that disfavor Black voters as long as the map-makers can show they are using race as a proxy for political affiliation.

In doing so, the court sided with Republican state officials who said their sole goal was to increase the Republican tilt in the district.

As a result of the ruling, Mace's district will not have to be redrawn, delivering a blow to Democrats who hope to secure a more favorable map. Litigation on a separate claim brought by plaintiffs against the map could continue.

[article continued]

Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that "no direct evidence" supports the lower court's finding that race was a key consideration when the map was drawn.

"The circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process," he added.

In dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority had "stacked the deck" against the challengers.

"What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering," she added.

The Supreme Court was reviewing a January 2023 lower court ruling that said race was of predominant concern when one of the state's seven districts was drawn. Republicans led by South Carolina Senate President Thomas Alexander appealed the decision.

Republicans redrew the boundaries after the 2020 census to strengthen GOP control of what had become a competitive district.

Democrat Joe Cunningham won the seat in 2018 and narrowly lost to Mace in 2020. Two years later, with a new map in place, Mace won by a wider margin.

The roughly 30,000 Black voters who were moved out of the district were placed into the district held by Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, who is Black. It is the only one of the seven congressional districts that is held by Democrats.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other civil rights groups alleged not only that Republicans unlawfully considered race when they drew the maps but that they also diluted the power of Black voters in doing so.

The claims were brought under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires that the law applies equally to everyone. The case arose under a different legal theory from the major ruling this year in which civil rights advocates successfully challenged Republican-drawn maps in Alabama under the Voting Rights Act.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

tempest me/me 1mo ago #6448311

Drawing districts by race isn't even illegal. No, I'm being serious, it's not illegal. They say it is, but it's not.

Allow me to introduce district IL-4.

This is actually less absurd than it used to be. It used to be called the "earmuff" district. Before the 2020 redistricting, it looked like this:

Why is it like this? Because Democrats ~~in Illinois~~ (apparently it was federal lmao) made it a legal requirement that they gerrymander by race. The argument was that otherwise latinx people wouldn't get their "deserved" representation.

Basically all Democrats bitching about gerrymandering can go frick themselves. They did it first and they do it harder.

44 Context

Blue_Helmet mayo/whyte Corn Syrup Enjoyer

tempest 1mo ago #6448554

It's kind of wild that Germandering based on race is not only legal, but is legally required. Not to long ago Alabama got pee pee slapped by the Supreme court for not drawing enough black majority districts.

Here is the New York Times bitching about how racist Alabama is for not discriminating on the basis of race

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-alabama.html

From the article

>The case concerned a voting map redrawn by Republican lawmakers after the 2020 census, leaving only one majority Black congressional district in a state with seven districts and a Black voting-age population that had grown to about 26 percent.

As with anything political, drawing disctricts based on race is racist, unless it is a good thing

I hate politics, it's so r-slurred :marseyspecial:

31 Context

pizzashill they/them Subject matter expertise: foid identity extremism tempest 1mo ago #6452055 Edited 1mo ago

Its illegal when you do so to exclude certain ethnic groups, so youre actually wrong.

It was done this way to prevent southern lawnakers from giga packing districts or excluding black voters.

or cracking them - creating a bunch of districts that run through black areas so you cut black voters from the majority in every district.

every rule like this you see came into being in response to tactics being used by southern r-slurs, and they're right back to doing all of them.

1 Context

tempest me/me pizzashill 1mo ago #6452137

"nooo we had to gerrymander this r-slurred district which has no cohesion they made ussss"

Pathetic argument, pizza. Draw the districts according to geographical areas. Any use of race as an explicit factor is r-slurred.

And they are excluding certain ethnic groups, you just think it's fine to do it because they're not "blessed" by the DNC.

3 Context

pizzashill they/them Subject matter expertise: foid identity extremism tempest 1mo ago #6452176

The use of rwce wasnt r-slurred when it came into being, but what saves it now is the GOP aggressively tries to crack black counties and this rule stops them.

0 Context

tempest me/me pizzashill 1mo ago #6452189

That IL-4 district was drawn in 2010 btw. It's not some ancient relic.

pizzashill they/them Subject matter expertise: foid identity extremism tempest 1mo ago #6452206

Was the district cracked to reduce black voting power?

tempest me/me pizzashill 1mo ago #6452263

Lmao no. If anything it's the opposite, it's actually been funny to watch bc the portion of Chicago's population that's black has been going down and yet they're still over-represented in city council, largely due to gerrymandering (although in that case it's city districts not federal congressional districts).

IL-4 was created because the feds demanded that we gerrymander to give an unfair advantage to Latinx voters. They're certainly not a majority here but IL was forced to forge a district where they were anyways.

GlowieKong sneed/sneeds 1mo ago #6448269

>that shouldn't matter. gerrymandering is wrong not matter which side benefits. the voters should choose their representative, not the representative chooseing the voters.

Jarvis, bring up New Jersey, Illinois, and Connecticut electoral maps.

24 Context

AstonishingGirth He/Him GlowieKong 1mo ago #6448866

Maryland, too.

11 Context

Kaweeensmooches they/them 1mo ago #6448168

>civil rights group had not done enough to show that legislators were focused on race in drawing the Charleston-area district

Why are these commie-ments talking about gerrymandering being legal. All this says is that they can't prove repub-facists drew districts based on race.