2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[Oryxslayer]

And as anticipated, the court orders their team of masters to begin their work. The rough ordered date for everything to be finished is October 1st, so we probably have a week at minimum before any remedial product is to be expected, the 25th at latest. The order is again unanimous,  despite the panel being all Republican appointments, some very recent. 

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1699059843427082664?t=mXr1ohiLTSJzhjdlEIpm...

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1699059181557543258?t=brmuVE2Dj_G61BH8AAvexA&am...

[Stuart98]

Oh the judges are pissed.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1699123860333797427

Lol

[tschandler]

Again what is wrong with a map that district by district is demographically consistent with the 2000 map? 

[Del Tachi]

Keep up the good fight, Alabama!

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1699123860333797427

Lol

What could they possibly go over that wasn't reviewed in Allen v Milligan?

[GALeftist]

Again what is wrong with a map that district by district is demographically consistent with the 2000 map? 

The court's decision outlines what's wrong with it and it's freely available to all who have an internet connection!

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1699123860333797427

Lol

What could they possibly go over that wasn't reviewed in Allen v Milligan?

The conservative cope du jour is that Kavanaugh's concurrence actually indicated that Alabama only lost because it didn't make a very specific argument that, while the federal government might once have had the authority to mandate consideration of race with respect to redistricting, it no longer has that authority because we solved racism. To be (excessively) fair, I suspect this is true on a long enough time scale; I think Kavanaugh probably does think that at some point in the future, perhaps the near future, VRA districts should be phased out. That said, this little two-step process plays out over the course of years, not months. Cert will be denied quickly imo.

[Oryxslayer]

Quite concisely puts into text the reason for subjecting people to BS for the past several months. Also why IMO why minorities are going to the most representation in the South since reconstruction come 2024 (especially if SC follows past precedent and Thomas is a safe vote for the plaintiffs).

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1699111344983646642?t=aRGoCKWZ8s8WkYZ4wbEgvA&am...

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1699123860333797427

Lol

What could they possibly go over that wasn't reviewed in Allen v Milligan?

The conservative cope du jour is that Kavanaugh's concurrence actually indicated that Alabama only lost because it didn't make a very specific argument that, while the federal government might once have had the authority to mandate consideration of race with respect to redistricting, it no longer has that authority because we solved racism. To be (excessively) fair, I suspect this is true on a long enough time scale; I think Kavanaugh probably does think that at some point in the future, perhaps the near future, VRA districts should be phased out. That said, this little two-step process plays out over the course of years, not months. Cert will be denied quickly imo.

I'm having an extremely difficult time seeing "Racism is Over in America" being a lie that SCOTUS would have the stomach for telling the country.   Even Kavanaugh wouldn't go that far, especially for a case regarding Alabama of all places.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Keep up the good fight, Alabama!

🙄

[tschandler]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map? 

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map? 

A) no one is saying the map is racist, but that it violates federal redistricting laws

2) they both can be bad. Just cause no one at the time said anything doesn’t make it right in retrospect.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1699123860333797427

Lol

What could they possibly go over that wasn't reviewed in Allen v Milligan?

The conservative cope du jour is that Kavanaugh's concurrence actually indicated that Alabama only lost because it didn't make a very specific argument that, while the federal government might once have had the authority to mandate consideration of race with respect to redistricting, it no longer has that authority because we solved racism. To be (excessively) fair, I suspect this is true on a long enough time scale; I think Kavanaugh probably does think that at some point in the future, perhaps the near future, VRA districts should be phased out. That said, this little two-step process plays out over the course of years, not months. Cert will be denied quickly imo.

I'm having an extremely difficult time seeing "Racism is Over in America" being a lie that SCOTUS would have the stomach for telling the country.   Even Kavanaugh wouldn't go that far, especially for a case regarding Alabama of all places.

I got a little cute, but that was essentially the rationale for Shelby County, when the court said that, although the nation might previously have been racist enough to justify section 4(b) of the VRA, it no longer is, so they're not going to let the infringement on federalism/equal protection slide any longer. Similarly, when they decide to get rid of section 2, I suspect that the rationale will be that 1. the Constitution is colorblind and demands that our laws also be colorblind and 2. the nation is no longer racist enough to justify section 2's being race conscious.

[Skill and Chance]

If you don't think racism against black people is still a problem in rural Alabama, I don't know what to tell you.  Don't let opposition to national level DEI stuff blind you to reality.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map? 

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

[Del Tachi]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

You are right, the argument is that black voters have a right to be represented by a person of their choice. It just so happens their choice is almost always a democrat.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The VRA is a bizarre, byzantine legal construct that makes absolutely no sense from first principles and that in a sane world would be superseded by a combination of fair redistricting ruled and/or compensatory PR seats. It's also the only thing currently standing in the way of complete disenfranchisement for POC in many states, and as such, anyone arguing against it without proposing an adequate substitute should be viewed with great suspicion.

[Del Tachi]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

You are right, the argument is that black voters have a right to be represented by a person of their choice. It just so happens their choice is almost always a democrat.

No.  Your statement is still too totalizing.   No voter has a right to be represented by the person of their choice.  The VRA is that Black communities have the right to a fair shot at electing their preferred representation.  If there is a natural constituency of Black voters populous enough to create a performing district, then it should be protected but that is not the same as requiring disparate Black populations to be strategically cracked or packed together in order to create a proportional map (which is what the AL ruling is, both in argument and in effect.)

[Nyvin]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

You are right, the argument is that black voters have a right to be represented by a person of their choice. It just so happens their choice is almost always a democrat.

No.  Your statement is still too totalizing.   No voter has a right to be represented by the person of their choice.  The VRA is that Black communities have the right to a fair shot at electing their preferred representation.  If there is a natural constituency of Black voters populous enough to create a performing district, then it should be protected but that is not the same as requiring disparate Black populations to be strategically cracked or packed together in order to create a proportional map (which is what the AL ruling is, both in argument and in effect.)

This was basically the entire premise of the court cases that were already decided (in favor of plaintiffs).   The decision said that Alabama's black population has the geography and population to have two black majority congressional districts that are "reasonably compact" and SCOTUS affirmed the ruling. 

Any judgements anyone here tries to make on it is going to be, in the end, just as arbitrary and analytical as what the court ruled, because the foundation they have to work with is itself so arbitrary to begin with.

[Del Tachi]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

You are right, the argument is that black voters have a right to be represented by a person of their choice. It just so happens their choice is almost always a democrat.

No.  Your statement is still too totalizing.   No voter has a right to be represented by the person of their choice.  The VRA is that Black communities have the right to a fair shot at electing their preferred representation.  If there is a natural constituency of Black voters populous enough to create a performing district, then it should be protected but that is not the same as requiring disparate Black populations to be strategically cracked or packed together in order to create a proportional map (which is what the AL ruling is, both in argument and in effect.)

This was basically the entire premise of the court cases that were already decided (in favor of plaintiffs).   The decision said that Alabama's black population has the geography and population to have two black majority congressional districts that are "reasonably compact" and SCOTUS affirmed the ruling. 

Any judgements anyone here tries to make on it is going to be, in the end, just as arbitrary and analytical as what the court ruled, because the foundation they have to work with is itself so arbitrary to begin with.

Yes, and my position this whole time has been that SCOTUS' decision is egregiously wrong.  The dissenting opinion lays out quite clearly the mistakes made by the majority.  The Alabama Legislature is right to confuse, befuddle, and delay a wrongly-decided Supreme Court opinion.  Accepting this ruling too readily makes it look like good law, when it isn't. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

As long as the black community votes overwhelmingly for Democrats (which they do), and that Democrat is not nominated despite the opposition of black voters in the primaries which is what was occurring then even with the Democrats being that conservative, then yes that is how the VRA defines it.

[Nyvin]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

You are right, the argument is that black voters have a right to be represented by a person of their choice. It just so happens their choice is almost always a democrat.

No.  Your statement is still too totalizing.   No voter has a right to be represented by the person of their choice.  The VRA is that Black communities have the right to a fair shot at electing their preferred representation.  If there is a natural constituency of Black voters populous enough to create a performing district, then it should be protected but that is not the same as requiring disparate Black populations to be strategically cracked or packed together in order to create a proportional map (which is what the AL ruling is, both in argument and in effect.)

This was basically the entire premise of the court cases that were already decided (in favor of plaintiffs).   The decision said that Alabama's black population has the geography and population to have two black majority congressional districts that are "reasonably compact" and SCOTUS affirmed the ruling. 

Any judgements anyone here tries to make on it is going to be, in the end, just as arbitrary and analytical as what the court ruled, because the foundation they have to work with is itself so arbitrary to begin with.

Yes, and my position this whole time has been that SCOTUS' decision is egregiously wrong.  The dissenting opinion lays out quite clearly the mistakes made by the majority.  The Alabama Legislature is right to confuse, befuddle, and delay a wrongly-decided Supreme Court opinion.  Accepting this ruling too readily makes it look like good law, when it isn't. 

"Wrong" based on what?   Two black majority districts can be drawn with minimal county splits and zero municipality splits and are pretty compact and neat looking without any crazy tentacles or indentations.  That's what Gingles is at the end of the day (along with racially polarized voting in Alabama), nothing else.

[Del Tachi]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

You are right, the argument is that black voters have a right to be represented by a person of their choice. It just so happens their choice is almost always a democrat.

No.  Your statement is still too totalizing.   No voter has a right to be represented by the person of their choice.  The VRA is that Black communities have the right to a fair shot at electing their preferred representation.  If there is a natural constituency of Black voters populous enough to create a performing district, then it should be protected but that is not the same as requiring disparate Black populations to be strategically cracked or packed together in order to create a proportional map (which is what the AL ruling is, both in argument and in effect.)

This was basically the entire premise of the court cases that were already decided (in favor of plaintiffs).   The decision said that Alabama's black population has the geography and population to have two black majority congressional districts that are "reasonably compact" and SCOTUS affirmed the ruling. 

Any judgements anyone here tries to make on it is going to be, in the end, just as arbitrary and analytical as what the court ruled, because the foundation they have to work with is itself so arbitrary to begin with.

Yes, and my position this whole time has been that SCOTUS' decision is egregiously wrong.  The dissenting opinion lays out quite clearly the mistakes made by the majority.  The Alabama Legislature is right to confuse, befuddle, and delay a wrongly-decided Supreme Court opinion.  Accepting this ruling too readily makes it look like good law, when it isn't. 

"Wrong" based on what?   Two black majority districts can be drawn with minimal county splits and zero municipality splits and are pretty compact and neat looking without any crazy tentacles or indentations.  That's what Gingles is at the end of the day (along with racially polarized voting in Alabama), nothing else.

Courts should not disturb legislative redistricting unless the sole reasonable explanation for the proposed map is racial discrimination.  I don't think plaintiffs demonstrated that in this case, and the Legislature made the race-neutral case that keeping Alabama's Gulf coast whole was important from a COI perspective.  That is believable and reasonable enough and follows traditional redistricting criteria. 

The plaintiff's maps are crazy looking.  They score lower on measures of compactness than the Legislature's maps, and they split very clear communities of interest that the Alabama Legislature has kept united for decades.