Supreme Court rules against Alabama

[gypsie]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

Did they instruct Alabama to crest another 'black' district?
Precision is key here, what does Alabama actually have to do?

Is see in Wikipedia that in the 2020 presidential election, Dems got 38%. Surely percentages like this should be reflected in districting outcomes? Not skin colour?
Is there no way to argue for fair proportional representation based on political perspectives?

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

Some lawyers involved.

[Durnik]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

Some lawyers involved.

on both sides...

[Nicholas Carey]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

Did they instruct Alabama to crest another 'black' district?
Precision is key here, what does Alabama actually have to do?

Is see in Wikipedia that in the 2020 presidential election, Dems got 38%. Surely percentages like this should be reflected in districting outcomes? Not skin colour?
Is there no way to argue for fair proportional representation based on political perspectives?

I have often said that redistricting should be done by simple rules:

1. Districts are to be as compact as possible, a circle being the platonic ideal shape for a district.

2. The only demographic data that can be taken into account in laying out districts is simple headcount.

3. District boundaries are to respect insofar as possible political geography, physical geography, and cultural geography in the form of neighborhoods. Cities, towns, villages, neighborhoods should not be cut in two if it can be helped.

4. When redrawing/updating the district maps, the general structure of the district map should be maintained as far as is practical. [Cutting an existing district into bits is a political tool used by gerrymanderers to disenfranchise incumbents of the opposite party, forcing them to run in a new district with a population unfavorable to the incumbent.]

[Paul Pless]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

i think the first assumption is that districts within any state should represent equal numbers of people, right?
and given rural vs urban divides this becomes the first difficulty in drawing fair district lines and the first opportunity for gerrymandering

I have often said that redistricting should be done by simple rules:

1. Districts are to be as compact as possible, a circle being the platonic ideal shape for a district.

2. The only demographic data that can be taken into account in laying out districts is simple headcount.

3. District boundaries are to respect insofar as possible political geography, physical geography, and cultural geography in the form of neighborhoods. Cities, towns, villages, neighborhoods should not be cut in two if it can be helped.

4. When redrawing/updating the district maps, the general structure of the district map should be maintained as far as is practical. [Cutting an existing district into bits is a political tool used by gerrymanderers to disenfranchise incumbents of the opposite party, forcing them to run in a new district with a population unfavorable to the incumbent.]

[Canoeyawl]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

We NEED to come up with a universal method to fairly define districts.

no more redlining then?

[skuthorp]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

#10

Does that fly?

[Breakaway]

Some lawyers involved.

Lawyers were involved because lawyers were involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[David G]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

Lawyers were involved because lawyers were involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I've seen what happens when laws and contracts of consequence are written without lawyers. It is mostly Not Pretty.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Alabama

Lawyers were involved because lawyers were involved.

Because the parties have the right to counsel.