That’s because according to the court, it is now acceptable for voting districts to have racially discriminatory impacts so long as they cannot be proved to have racially discriminatory intent. Alito’s opinion overturns the 1982 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, which specifically said that voting district maps needed to be drawn in a way that preserved the equitable representation of racial minorities – and that mere discriminatory impact was sufficient to render maps illegal, with no evidence of discriminatory intent required. Discarding congressional intent entirely, Alito claims that this provision is itself unconstitutional, because in order to ensure equal representation for Black voters, redistricting bodies have to consider race. This, the court contended, constitutes discrimination against non-Black voters. Instead, a facially race-neutral – but in effect racially discriminatory – new regime has been imposed.
Well, yes. If race is not an acceptable measure of who votes in which district then race is not an acceptable measure of who votes in which district. That you like the current outcome doesn’t change this fact about racial discrimination.
It is difficult to say how many seats Democrats will lose in the coming Republican redistricting bonanza that the court’s decision will allow. A New York Times analysis found that the ruling would endanger about a dozen Democratic-leaning seats across the American south. A report by Fair Fight Action, the voting rights group led by the Georgia Democratic activist Stacey Abrams, says that Republicans could pick up as many as 27 seats.
So you’re saying that the current system of racial discrimination gives D 27 seats? Why is this good? Other than that you prefer Ds?
Whilst this change seems perfectly legitimate it still requires lots of scrutiny. Any change to a voting system that favors the incumbent needs to pass the sniff test.
Indeed. The original changes made to artificially favour Ds didn’t pass the sniff test. So it’s finally being undone.
It does.
We move on.
Some of us ignorant Brits thought that candidates stood as Democrars or Republicans (or, occasionally but rarely, Independant) not as “Black” or “White”. Moira clearly has access to information which has not been hitherto shared with us.
The big difference over here is that contorted gerrymandering is unnecessary as ethnic groups have proved extremely effective at taking over various localities and then spreading outwards. Places such as Leicester where two tectonic plates clash are relatively rare.
Considering Stacy is the US equivalent of Diane Abbott I’d place as much reliance on her estimate as that of my cat – who’s pretty dumb.
Anyway, unless the Republicans get their skates on in time for the mid-terms, and you can bet your life many RINOs will be dragging their heels, it will all be for nothing.
The DOJ is already jumping to *mandate* appropriate district changes – so even states (like Indiana) that want to drag their feet will be forced to re-evaluate their districting.
So, as usual, the claim by the Left that this means “The end of Democracy” is simply “My Party had an advantage and now it’s being made fair”. A tragedy, to be sure…
Yes. In fact, redistricting is controlled by state governments. Hence, redistricting will favor Democrats if they control the state. If Republicans are in power, them p#ssies will just try to make it fair.
“.. 1982 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, which specifically said that voting district maps needed to be drawn in a way that preserved the equitable representation of racial minorities – and that mere discriminatory impact was sufficient to render maps illegal, with no evidence of discriminatory intent required.”
You don’t need to show discriminatory intent when that intent is self-declared in the legislation itself and is otherwise screamingly obvious!
Any examination of governance systems shows that such “functional” electoral districts are a sign of an immature democracy and have no place in…. oh wait.
They are trying to claim that groups have constitutional rights, which they do not.
Black Americans have constitutional rights as individuals and these include being treated in the same way as white Americans, and this is what is happening.
“Discarding congressional intent entirely,”
Congressional statutes, never mind congressional intent, take second place to the constitution which is the supreme law of the land. You can’t change the constitution by congressional action.
You must always use Stacey Abrams’ title when discussing Election Denier Stacey Abrams.
The Democrats thought they were going to give it good and hard to the Republicans with redistricting, expecting them to roll over as usual. With Trump leading, the Republicans aren’t doing that anymore. The Democrats had already gerrymandered their states significantly, leaving little room for picking up additional seats that way. The Republicans hadn’t gone scorched earth on redistricting yet, so they had much more scope to increase representation. The 2030 Census has the demographics moving the Republican’s way, so the Democrats may have their 40 years in the wilderness like the Republicans had after World War Eleven.
“after World War Eleven” Well said, sir!
She’s funny looking bint. Part spoilt toddler, part angry young man who just swallowed a slice of lemon, part bulldog which just got on the outside of a wasp, part old geezer who realised a moment ago that that one last oyster was going to cause trouble.
Oh, and part Gary Numan: https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2018/a-word-of-caution-documents-like-that-media-men-list-are-like-wikipedia-wrapped-in-razor-blades/
The US was not a true democracy before the Voting Rights Act.
And the Supreme Court is turning it back into a constitutional republic.
The term implies an equality of rights and dignity among citizens, a collective and uniform right of individuals to participate in self-government and to shape the laws that rule them.
No. The definition is clear. Commie bitch invents all sorts of wondrous sounding powers for democracy, then cries that they have been lost. Does Guardian have no editors?
It’s commie bitches all the way up and down.
What they always fail to mention is that the previous legal regime *mandated* racially discriminatory impacts with *explicit* racially discriminatory intent.
Yep. It’s their LOSS of racial discrimination that has them pissed.