- 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
re: Supreme Court has ruled two black majority districts in Louisiana.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 8:53 pm to deeprig9
Posted on 5/15/24 at 8:53 pm to deeprig9
quote:
It's constitutional because congress passed it, the president signed it, it is law.
So what you are really telling me is the constitutionality of the law Congress passed and the President signed has not been challenged.
I pray this receives a challenge soon.
0
Posted on 5/15/24 at 8:56 pm to Tvilletiger
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.
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.
This post was edited on 5/15/24 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 5/15/24 at 8:56 pm to deeprig9
quote:
gerrymandering approved by the federal government
Top that off with affirmative action
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:02 pm to Hickok
Every Congressional district map in LA in recent decades has been gerrymandered. And just because thE new 6th district has 53.5% registered black voters does NOT mean Cleo Fields will win thaT SEAT. Black voters in our state are notorious for NOT voting in elections. It would not surprise me at all if Graves wins re-election inspite of what Governor Landry wants.
That being said, I will vote for Fields over Graves who has been a very ineffectual US Rep.
That being said, I will vote for Fields over Graves who has been a very ineffectual US Rep.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:17 pm to chili pup
quote:
I am not located in Louisiana. But if you do not know that answer you have a lot to learn.
Blacks will eventually get fricked. Illegals about to get stacked.
Well this isn’t the case with the map that is now going to be used.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:19 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
That being said, I will vote for Fields over Graves who has been a very ineffectual US Rep.
So you are anti-oil & gas and pro-income redistribution? Just asking.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:24 pm to thejuiceisloose
quote:
Is it likely that this appeal won't be heard until after the election??
I just skimmed the order before leaving work but I got the impression that it would be docketed quickly based on the emergency application. The only opinion published was Justice Jackson's dissent. She felt like the emergency application was not needed this far out from the election which I disagree with simply due to the slow-moving nature of the Fed Ct system. She made a cogent legal argument but I think it fails the common sense test but that is very common in the legal realm.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:29 pm to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
Based on the racial demographics, 2 minority districts is about right. 1 is definitely low when the state is 33% black.
Why is it even in the calculus at all?
Besides, the idea that congressional delegations must equate to the demographic percentages of the population is just plain stupid.
Redistricting should be based on geography and population, period. Zero other factors.
This post was edited on 5/15/24 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:34 pm to gillian
quote:+1
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
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:34 pm to TarHeel408
quote:
Bill Pryor,
always had bill at the top of my list
Posted on 5/15/24 at 10:59 pm to doubleb
quote:
The Governor put personal politics ahead of what’s best for our state.
And as a result, this will cost an R seat in an already tight majority in the House
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:26 am to PsychTiger
You can forget about any flood control projects getting completed
Graves was the only one making sure that was getting done since the awful 2016 flood
Can’t wait to vote for graves for governor
Graves was the only one making sure that was getting done since the awful 2016 flood
Can’t wait to vote for graves for governor
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 6:42 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:43 am to udtiger
quote:
So...racial discrimination is okay
If it favors black folks it is ok…
If it favors white folks it is not ok…
Alabama suffered this earlier with the redrawing of the 2nd as a minority district…. It pitted two conservative incumbent reps against each other in the 1st district…
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:47 am to Night Vision
Didn't get two here in Alabama? And neither one does a damned thing .....When you are outnumbered 45-2 your chances are slim to none.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 7:14 am to GeorgeWest
quote:
Graves who has been a very ineffectual US Rep.
Don’t tell that to folks who have waited decades for the Comite Diversion, Graves got that moving.
Graves also help expose the Broome lie about the Feds’ role in storm mitigation. There was no non disclosure agreement.
Graves >>>>>>>>>>Fields
Posted on 5/16/24 at 7:28 am to GeorgeWest
quote:
Every Congressional district map in LA in recent decades has been gerrymandered. And just because thE new 6th district has 53.5% registered black voters does NOT mean Cleo Fields will win thaT SEAT. Black voters in our state are notorious for NOT voting in elections. It would not surprise me at all if Graves wins re-election inspite of what Governor Landry wants.
That is my point too. If there are enough conservative white voters that show up Graves should win. Also, it is a presidential election cycle where Trump is on the ballot. Graves could ride Trump’s coattails and get some crossover black votes unless Graves gets beat at the pass in the Republican Primary against a Black Republican who defeats him in the primary, if we start that this year.
Heck since Landry and Cleo have become BFF’s Cleo should become a Republican to really screw Graves…LOL.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 7:30 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 7:32 am to Indefatigable
We have roughly 6 population centers in La.
1- NOLA
2- BR
3- Lafayette
4- Shreveport
5-Lake Charles
6- Monroe
Let's create districts around those cities then. I wonder how that will turn out?
1- NOLA
2- BR
3- Lafayette
4- Shreveport
5-Lake Charles
6- Monroe
Let's create districts around those cities then. I wonder how that will turn out?
Posted on 5/16/24 at 7:41 am to ShermanTxTiger
June 28, 1993
In a 5-4 decision the courts ruled in favor of Shaw (the petitioner), finding that it was, in fact, unlawful to gerrymander on the basis of race. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in which she explains the court's ruling.
How can the Supreme Court contradict itself?
In a 5-4 decision the courts ruled in favor of Shaw (the petitioner), finding that it was, in fact, unlawful to gerrymander on the basis of race. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in which she explains the court's ruling.
How can the Supreme Court contradict itself?
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:13 am to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
Let's create districts around those cities then.
Correct. That is how it should be done to begin with, though North LA is not populated enough to center districts around both Shreveport and Monroe. Alexandria is probably a more logical center than Monroe in that case.
Like I said, pure geography and population, adhering to existing administrative boundaries where possible to keep community interests together. Zero regard for demographics/race/party affiliation/etc. .
quote:
I wonder how that will turn out?
It'll turn out how it turns out. I'd imagine we would actually have some competitive congressional districts in that case.
ETA: I made one in less than five minutes, can't figure out how to post the screenshot though.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 10:25 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:21 am to Indefatigable
quote:
pure geography and population, adhering to existing administrative boundaries where possible to keep community interests together. Zero regard for demographics/race/party affiliation/etc
But then personal vendettas can’t be carried out that way. Where’s the fun in that?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News