Supreme Court has ruled two black majority districts in Louisiana.

How is this Constitutional?

Link?

So...racial discrimination is okay.

Noted

Gerrymandering is wrong no matter how u slice it., they should challenge the original law

This is such fricking bullshite. frick this Supreme Court.

Yeah, the state is 30% black, but they’re spread out across the state and not concentrated in any one area, so why do we need to gerrymander a fricking district that stretches across the state to appease them.

quote:

---

Supreme Court has ruled two black majority districts in Louisiana.

---

Like so many threads on SCOTUS rulings on this board this one makes my head hurt. All the order does is stay the order of US Dist Ct for the W Dist of LA until the docketing of the appeal with SCOTUS. The 6-3 vote had all the "conservative" justices in the affirmative.

This case turns on the Purcell Principle which prevents changes to election law too close to an election. Like much of case law Purcell v Gonzales leaves the timing ambiguous and up for debate.

Based on the racial demographics, 2 minority districts is about right. 1 is definitely low when the state is 33% black.

This decision is an abomination on many levels. First, race should not be used in redistricting. Clarance Thomas has long argued that the interpretations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its various amendments are unconstitutional because they favor one racial group over another in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and he is right.

Second, there is explicit provisions indicating that there is no statutory requirement that there be proportional representation of different groups in a given congressional delegation. When someone says that “group A has X percent of the population and hence should have X percent of the seats,” they are entitled to their opinion, but they are wrong.

Third, there are certain redistricting standards that must be met, including the drawing of compact districts. There is no way that one can look at the second majority black district and say that it meets the compactness standard. It is reminiscent of the “Mark of Zorro” district created for Cleo Fields that the federal courts declared unconstitutional in the 1990s, largely on compactness grounds.

Finally, race is highly related to partisanship. If one did not know the racial makeup of various precincts in the state and drew district lines based on partisanship, one would likely end up with a majority black congressional district. The present interpretation of the law gives Democrats an advantage in the redistricting process throughout the country. If memory serves, Alabama used computer software to draw its congressional district lines without regard to race, but the use of partisanship (which is not illegal) and other race-neutral criteria resulted in fewer black congressional districts than civil rights groups were demanding.

At this point SCOTUS is rendering decisions based on a flawed statute (i.e., the VRA and its subsequent amendments) and a deeply flawed interpretation of the constitutionality of that statute and amendments. What is necessary is for a Republican Congress and a Republican president to revise the VRA to make it clear that there is no expectation of proportional representation of different groups, including racial groups. The standard for invalidating a congressional redistricting plan should be intent—that is, that the legislature drawing congressional district lines purposefully and intentionally seeks to minimize the representation of racial minority groups. If there is intentional racial discrimination, then by all means the federal courts should be involved. If not, then non-racial evaluation criteria (e.g., compactness) should be used in drawing district lines.

Is this the state or SCOTUS? Is there a link for this?