Started By
Message

re: Supreme Court rejects Alabama’s congressional map with just one majority-Black district

Posted on 9/26/23 at 1:06 pm to
Posted by tonyarm99
Member since Sep 2017
204 posts
Posted on 9/26/23 at 1:06 pm to
Kavanaugh and Roberts again...........
Posted by Dday63
Member since Sep 2014
2393 posts
Posted on 9/26/23 at 2:04 pm to
The real solution here is to dramatically increase the size of Congress. We have been stuck at 435 Representatives for over 100 years, for no good reason. The FF clearly wanted the House to grow with the population.

We should triple the size of Congress. Let's see if Alabama can effectively gerrymander if they have to create 21 districts instead of just 7.
This post was edited on 9/26/23 at 2:06 pm
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
35539 posts
Posted on 9/26/23 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

You know who drew that district? The district drawing is an attempt to get as many AA votes in a district to make the other districts easy GOP victories


I don't care who it benefits. It's still bullshite.

Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
35539 posts
Posted on 9/26/23 at 3:24 pm to
quote:

Unfortunately, Alabama used to be 100% Democratic party, so they drew up districts to silence black votes. THAT clearly violated the 15th Amendment. The Voting Rights Act was intended to put a stop to that

So, yeah, I'm anti-gerrymandering, but this is where we are. All I said was I believe the Voting Rights Act and it's application here are Constitutional.


You and I appear to agree on the concept of gerrymandering, but I disagree on the constitutionality of it. If drawing up districts to benefit whites violates the 15th amendment, then drawing up districts to benefit blacks does as well.

You can't have it both ways.
Posted by SlimTigerSlap
Member since Apr 2022
4313 posts
Posted on 9/26/23 at 4:19 pm to
quote:

You and I appear to agree on the concept of gerrymandering, but I disagree on the constitutionality of it. If drawing up districts to benefit whites violates the 15th amendment, then drawing up districts to benefit blacks does as well.

You can't have it both ways.

What about redrawing districts that overwhelmingly benefited whites to be less overwhelmingly beneficial to whites?


FYI: used "whites" to make my argument. This is about political strongholds.
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
35539 posts
Posted on 9/26/23 at 4:58 pm to
quote:

What about redrawing districts that overwhelmingly benefited whites to be less overwhelmingly beneficial to whites?


FYI: used "whites" to make my argument. This is about political strongholds.


Using race in any form should be illegal. That's why hard boundaries should be used, such as county, city or precinct borders.

Posted by Dday63
Member since Sep 2014
2393 posts
Posted on 9/26/23 at 6:05 pm to
quote:

Using race in any form should be illegal. That's why hard boundaries should be used, such as county, city or precinct borders.


As I posted way earlier in this thread, we should reach a point where a legislature can show a non-racial purpose for its district lines, and if it happens to be disproportionate toward one race then that's just too bad. Such as simple geography and population

Right now Alabama just has too many possible district lines, so when they eliminate black voices it seems discriminatory. They are really just trying to silence Democratic candidates.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram