- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:12 pm to uggabugga
quote:
How the hell can they order them to defy the United States supreme Court?
They can't, and didn't.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:12 pm to Archives
quote:
A panel of federal judges on Monday blocked Alabama from using congressional district maps that would dilute the votes of Blacks in the 2026 midterm elections.
So let me get this straight. SCOTUS says that it is unconstitutional to force Louisiana to use race when drawing congressional maps. 3 circuit judges decide that it is ok to force Alabama to use race.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:14 pm to WeeWee
quote:
So let me get this straight. SCOTUS says that it is unconstitutional to force Louisiana to use race when drawing congressional maps. 3 circuit judges decide that it is ok to force Alabama to use race.
You don't have it straight.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
So let me get this straight. SCOTUS says that it is unconstitutional to force Louisiana to use race when drawing congressional maps. 3 circuit judges decide that it is ok to force Alabama to use race.
You don't have it straight.
Then please unqueer it for me.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:23 pm to WeeWee
This ruling concerns the legislature's map from 2023. The court previously found that the map was impermissible because it was based on race/racially discriminatory. That decision had been appealled and was pending when the SCOTUS set out its new standard for race-based districting in the Louisiana case. Then, SCOTUS sent this case back down to be reheard under that new framework. That happened, and this court applied the Louisiana case standard to the 2023 Alabama map--and maintained that the 2023 was impermissibly raced-based.
So in the interim, the map drawn by a special master for the 2024 elections will stay in place unless SCOTUS comes in and says the 2023 map is not illegally race-based.
The Callais decision/standard did not really impact this litigation, as the question presented isn't whether or not race can be considered, but whether race was in fact the driver behind this particular map.
Tl;dr: This isn't going against SCOTUS. Its deciding whether or not the 2023 map was drawn based on race, within the framework SCOTUS set out in the LA case.
So in the interim, the map drawn by a special master for the 2024 elections will stay in place unless SCOTUS comes in and says the 2023 map is not illegally race-based.
The Callais decision/standard did not really impact this litigation, as the question presented isn't whether or not race can be considered, but whether race was in fact the driver behind this particular map.
Tl;dr: This isn't going against SCOTUS. Its deciding whether or not the 2023 map was drawn based on race, within the framework SCOTUS set out in the LA case.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:25 pm to Indefatigable
Oh we have it straight; Those people flat said dilute black votes. One black vote cannot count more than mine that isn't constitutional.
So explain to me how a vote can be"diluted". Because someones candidate loses based on his race?
So explain to me how a vote can be"diluted". Because someones candidate loses based on his race?
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:27 pm to Archives
Whatever you think of the current maps, I can’t imagine how anyone can support mid term map drawing.
We really do all need to agree this gets done once every 10 years with the new census.
Having maps get drawn and redrawn regularly is a true race to the bottom and bad for the long term health of our country.
We really do all need to agree this gets done once every 10 years with the new census.
Having maps get drawn and redrawn regularly is a true race to the bottom and bad for the long term health of our country.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:28 pm to antibarner
quote:
So explain to me how a vote can be"diluted".
I don't necessarily agree with the ruling, although it can easily be fixed. Just have the legislature draw a new map and create a new record making it all partisan instead of demographic.
That said--"diluting" or "cracking" is one of the main forms of gerrymandering. That isn't fantasy, it happens often. You take a sizeable population who, if left together, would vote one way, and distribute them to other districts so that they no longer have a majority in any district. That's what they mean by "diluting." The most obvious example is what the medium-sized states do to their large blue cities, but both parties across all states do it to one degree or another.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:31 pm to Indefatigable
horseshite. You're allowing one demographic special privileges which is what SCOTUS said you could not do.
One man. One vote. No more of this bloc vote BS.
One man. One vote. No more of this bloc vote BS.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:33 pm to Bandit1980
quote:
The judges want to tell everyone they fought so hard for the jackass Dem cause.
The judges are two Trump appointees, and one Reagan appointee. The Reagan appointee actually sits on the super-conservative Eleventh Circuit, but he sat in on this district court panel.
These silly, liberal judges fighting so hard for the Dem cause!! (Although I so have my doubts about the two Trump appointees...not because of Trump, Im just not that impressed with their work)
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:35 pm to Archives
This should be quickly overturned by SCOTUS.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:37 pm to Archives
(posted after Indefatigable's otherwise excellent take)
I hate to go down the rabbit hole of our favorite NED bot and divorce attorney, but this is the skinny.
The 2023 ruling cited evidence that the 6-1 Alabama maps were drawn to get around 2 seats that would have otherwise gone to black candidates as a response to the original VRA ruling requiring a 2nd black district. Basically, the legislatures looked at the ruling and then tried to map around it and by doing so, showed intent to dilute the black vote.
It was a dumbass move to resumbit basically the same map in 2026. They could have submitted a 7-0 map and probably gotten away with it.
I hate to go down the rabbit hole of our favorite NED bot and divorce attorney, but this is the skinny.
The 2023 ruling cited evidence that the 6-1 Alabama maps were drawn to get around 2 seats that would have otherwise gone to black candidates as a response to the original VRA ruling requiring a 2nd black district. Basically, the legislatures looked at the ruling and then tried to map around it and by doing so, showed intent to dilute the black vote.
It was a dumbass move to resumbit basically the same map in 2026. They could have submitted a 7-0 map and probably gotten away with it.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:39 pm to Archives
quote:
“As we see it, the irreducible minimum is that federal law requires that all Alabamians have an opportunity to vote under districting plans untainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the panel wrote.
“We do not lightly intrude in state affairs, but our previous review of the undisputed evidence left us in no doubt that Alabama’s legislatively enacted plan (the ’2023 Plan’) intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution,” the panel said. “Our re-examination in light of Callais yields the same conclusion. We again cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory.”
This is completely false. The maps drawn by the courts intentionally used race. The maps originally drawn by Alabama clearly did not.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:40 pm to Jimmy Russel
quote:
The 2023 ruling cited evidence that the 6-1 Alabama maps were drawn to get around 2 seats that would have otherwise gone to black candidates as a response to the original VRA ruling requiring a 2nd black district. Basically, the legislatures looked at the ruling and then tried to map around it and by doing so, showed intent to dilute the black vote.
Not true. They drew districts as close to the previous court-ordered districts (during the Obama era) as possible.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:40 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
The maps drawn by the courts intentionally used race. The maps originally drawn by Alabama clearly did not.
That's maybe a matter of opinion about whether Alabama's maps were race-based, but you have a very good point about the original ruling.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:41 pm to Jimmy Russel
quote:
That's maybe a matter of opinion, but you have a very good point.
I don't think it's opinion. The court map clearly uses race as a factor. There's no other explanation for splitting Mobile County in half the way they did.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:43 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
I don't think it's opinion. The court map clearly uses race as a factor. There's no other explanation for splitting Mobile County in half the way they did.
Like I said, that's a very good point.
Looking at it that way, that might clear the path for a 7-0 map.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You take a sizeable population who, if left together, would vote one way
And what “way” is that?
Posted on 5/26/26 at 12:45 pm to SloaneRanger
If blacks had it their way. They would implement segregation again. See South Africa for more information. One could argue that desegregation is a liberal western concept created by hwite men.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News