- 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
State seeks U.S. Supreme Court help in fight over Louisiana congressional map
Posted on 5/14/24 at 7:45 am
Posted on 5/14/24 at 7:45 am
quote:
BATON ROUGE, La. — Loyola Law Professor Dane Ciolino says Louisiana is caught in a collision at the intersection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“The Secretary of State just needs some clear direction from the Supreme Court as to which map to use,” Ciolino said.
A decision by a federal three-judge panel from the Western District of Louisiana said upcoming elections cannot use the recently adopted congressional map that includes a second majority-black district.
The court ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by a group of 12, “non-african American” voters which argued the new map constitutes a racial gerrymander.
The new district cuts across the center of the state from Shreveport to Baton Rouge.
Ciolino says under the Voting Rights Act, race can be a factor just not the predominant factor when drawing district boundaries.
“Other factors have to play a significant role. Things like contiguity, things like identity of interests.”
The state has now petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend, or stay, the judges’ order.
“According to the state’s brief if nothing happens it will be forced to use the map that was adopted by the legislature in HB1 some years ago which a federal district judge in Baton Rouge has already found violates the Voting Rights Act,” Ciolino said
That map includes five white majority and one majority-black districts.
Election officials say they need the congressional map to be finalized by this Wednesday, May 15, so candidates can qualify for the fall election in June.
LINK
This thing is such a shitshow. There's the argument that since one-third of Louisiana's population population is black, then two out of the six Congressional districts should be majority minority. However, the only way to make that happen is through significant gerrymandering, which is supposed to be "against the rules".
Draw six districts as compact or "blocked" as possible with evened out populations, along parish lines as much as possible, and just pass that one to the courts.
4
Posted on 5/14/24 at 7:46 am to ragincajun03
Alabama has the same issue.
Its a shitshow.
Its a shitshow.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 7:50 am to SECSolomonGrundy
This is so confusing. You can't racially gerrymander, but you must create a second majority black district. 
Posted on 5/14/24 at 7:52 am to ragincajun03
quote:
a collision at the intersection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Amendment > Act. The only reason there's a "collision" is because the attempted theft of authority by an Act has yet to be adequately challenged in an objective court.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 8:05 am to ragincajun03
quote:
through significant gerrymandering
Well, when it favors the blacks, this is ok...
When it doesn't favor the blacks, then this is not ok...
Good luck, but the courts have not been favorable on turning this behavior around...
Posted on 5/14/24 at 8:30 am to The Maj
I see this as a chance for the court to say “frick this, frick that, frick this thing in particular.”
Specifically, I see a nominal 6-3 majority invalidating a portion of the VRA which should have been released years ago.
There were legit reasons for it in the 60s.
In the 2020s? It exists solely to prop up the Dems who demand set asides which make it easy for them to have permanent districts.
Specifically, I see a nominal 6-3 majority invalidating a portion of the VRA which should have been released years ago.
There were legit reasons for it in the 60s.
In the 2020s? It exists solely to prop up the Dems who demand set asides which make it easy for them to have permanent districts.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 8:39 am to teke184
quote:
There were legit reasons for it in the 60s.
In the 2020s? It exists solely to prop up the Dems who demand set asides which make it easy for them to have permanent districts.
One could argue that in reliable nationally red states like Louisiana, Alabama, Texas...forced gerrymandering of districts to ensure X amount of majority minority districts actually then leads to more "extreme" or "MAGA" Republicans having an easy path to being elected and re-elected to Congress.
So the same individuals and organizations who decry the "ultra" right or also still forcing a path that end of the day carves out districts more likely to elect an ultra conservative candidate to the U.S. House of Representatives. Same with the state legislative districts.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 8:43 am to ragincajun03
So instead of a person's ideology or principles being the cause for their election, it is now simply a skin color?
How is that concept constitutional?
How is that concept constitutional?
Posted on 5/14/24 at 8:46 am to Bard
quote:
in an objective court.
I do believe that this species is extinct.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 9:18 am to Timeoday
quote:
So instead of a person's ideology or principles being the cause for their election, it is now simply a skin color?
The original map passed by the GOP, i.e. the map they really wanted was drawn to minimize the voting power of N B.R. and New Orleans as much as possible..... I wonder what criteria they looked at hmm. Both sides are complicate in race based maps, the question is which one do you want?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News