2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[It’s so Joever]

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. 

I doubt you actually believe what you are saying. We both know your “COI” argument is ridiculous in a state where politics and culture largely is racially polarized. You are advocating for splitting up a community of interest, not for keeping one together.

This was a partisan decision as is your support. Just be honest.

[tschandler]

Yet again progressives are saying the quiet part out loud.  They moved far too left to reach their old voters in the 2nd and 5th. 

They were absolutely fine with the maps until they couldn't win said districts.

Somehow they get one of them back with absolutely no effort on their part politically.   So lawfare cloaked in BS about race.

[Brittain33]

Yet again progressives are saying the quiet part out loud.  They moved far too left to reach their old voters in the 2nd and 5th. 

They were absolutely fine with the maps until they couldn't win said districts.

Somehow they get one of them back with absolutely no effort on their part politically.   So lawfare cloaked in BS about race.

“Moved far too left” = elevate an African-American to President

[Ferguson97]

Keep up the good fight, Alabama!

Wow, with an attitude like this, i's truly a wonder why 94% of Black people in Mississippi voted for the Democrats in 2020...

[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.

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.

Wrong based on “I don’t like it and I want my party to have more seats”

[Gass3268]

With this story coming out, I can’t imagine Kavanaugh changing his mind on this.

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1700135528199241988?s=46

[Oryxslayer]

With this story coming out, I can’t imagine Kavanaugh changing his mind on this.

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1700135528199241988?s=46

Kinda off topic but not really:

One now wonders what might happen in the SC Racial Gerrymandering case, because historically it has been devised as a handbrake on Section 2. In the 90s with the advent of computer redistricting,  it was used by rival groups of whites against the maps drawn by the other, albeit mostly in the South where this type of thing is relevant.  Dems looking to cling to power draw spiderwebs. VRA seats pulled in disparate communities to avoid wasting votes, and concentrated minority populations got divided into many majority white Dem won seats. Then when the GOP got momentary control (before 2010) they drew noodle districts that sought to pack as many black voters as possible,  no matter how scattered or confusing. 

Racial Gerrymandering went against both of these by emphasizing improper overconsideration of race. Even though the remedies can be nebulous,  it is mostly a way to get seats to follow local communities, which offers a tangible goal. Make no mistake,  this back and fourth still plays out at the county and local level, because there said spiderwebs piss off only a limited number of people. 

It is only in the last few years that minority groups have started bringing these claims, but their arguments are basically the same as when it's been a GOP map on the stand.  You improperly packed minorities and crossed the clear deliniator of Tampa Bay just to grab several neighborhoods of St. Pete,  for instance. And obviously while there are more of these congressionally that would favor Dems, cause the GOP controls the state's where it is most relevant,  this doesn't mean the GOP has filed no such claims this cycle. They would also appreciate having the tools available if Dems get control over one of the big diverse southern states.

And that's all before we factor in that Thomas has so far never been against a group of Racial Gerrymandering plaintiffs. Obviously things could change given today's court is different from its predecessors.  He however though has been consistent in his views that race should be a very minor part of redistricting: so no race guided Section 2, but no race motivated Gerrymandering either. So while it would appear confusing, the court coalition is there for a large and quick majority for the merits of the plaintiffs.

[politicallefty]

Kavanaugh knows what he was doing when he joined the majority opinion in Milligan. Come on, now. Roberts has been no fan of the Voting Rights Act and that goes back to his work in the Reagan Administration. The fact that those two joined with the liberals to form a majority against Alabama should tell you a lot about this case. The lower court was a trial on the merits of the issues at hand and it was convincing enough for a 3-judge panel, including two Trump appointees, to rule against the state. This isn't the Warren Court upholding a ruling from some ultraliberal panel.

The major difference with states like Alabama and Louisiana is that two black-opportunity seats can be easily drawn while also maintaining a certain level of compactness and sensibility. It's also why a VRA challenge in South Carolina would and should almost certainly fail. Some of the districts drawn after the 1990 Census went to extremes and were struck down by a Court that at least a few notches to the left of this current one.

[Oryxslayer]

It's also why a VRA challenge in South Carolina would and should almost certainly fail. Some of the districts drawn after the 1990 Census went to extremes and were struck down by a Court that at least a few notches to the left of this current one.

I'm not sure if you were responding to me but I can't stress this enough Racial Gerrymandering Suits under the 14th Amendment =/= Section 2 VRA Claims. The case law, theory, justifications, and remedies are entirely different. Please inform yourself if you are not aware of this distinction, if you are then ignore me.


But yes, the article does dance around the nicety afforded to the court last session of going 1 to 1 on the VRA and affirmative action.

[politicallefty]

It's also why a VRA challenge in South Carolina would and should almost certainly fail. Some of the districts drawn after the 1990 Census went to extremes and were struck down by a Court that at least a few notches to the left of this current one.

I'm not sure if you were responding to me but I can't stress this enough Racial Gerrymandering Suits under the 14th Amendment =/= Section 2 VRA Claims. The case law, theory, justifications, and remedies are entirely different. Please inform yourself if you are not aware of this distinction, if you are then ignore me.


But yes, the article does dance around the nicety afforded to the court last session of going 1 to 1 on the VRA and affirmative action.

Oh, I wasn't responding to you. Sorry about that. It was just a general comment on this topic.

I am aware of the differences between the two cases. That said, I have a very hard time seeing 14th Amendment claims going anywhere with this current Court. It's possible overt racial gerrymandering could get a response from this Court, but that's very difficult to prove now.

[Del Tachi]

I doubt you actually believe what you are saying. We both know your “COI” argument is ridiculous in a state where politics and culture largely is racially polarized. You are advocating for splitting up a community of interest, not for keeping one together.

This was a partisan decision as is your support. Just be honest.

I'm passionate about this case because it's a matter of local representation for a community to which I have multiple connections.  My dad worked on the Alabama Gulf Coast while I was growing up, and my brother and his wife live in Mobile.  It's always been somewhat of a second home for me.  I haven't posted any about the redistricting drama happening in NC, FL or even LA, because I don't see this as a partisan issue.  It's about this specific community.

As Alabama's only two coastal counties, Mobile-Baldwin (which together are ~90% of the population needed for a district, btw) is a clear community of interest.    Whether by the French, the Spanish, or the early United States, this region along the Gulf Coast was always grouped together—and separately from the parts of Alabama to the north.  It's still very culturally different from the rest of Alabama today (a fact to which you're happily ignorant); just listen to how effusively it's described in an animus brief that was submitted by Gulf Coast business and civic groups for this case:

Anyone from other parts of Alabama will tell you coastal culture is, well, different. It is difficult for outside observers—even from places as close as Huntsville, Birmingham, and Montgomery—to get their heads around how important Mardi Gras is to Alabamians on the coast.  Stemming from its French Catholic heritage, Mobile is the source of America’s first Mardi Gras celebrations—a fact people from both counties are quick to note when they make friends from New Orleans.  Schoolkids have actual Mardi Gras holidays each year: in 2022, they got—in combination with President’s Day—three straight days off.  Businesses
shut down. Lawyers stop billing hours and get frustratingly hard to find. But the pause is good for the local economy, creating 12,811 jobs.

And as the quote ends with, it's the economy too. The shipping, shipbuilding, commercial fishing, and tourism economy supported by the Gulf Coast make this economy unlike any other in Alabama.  Mobile-Baldwin has been very successful in attracting new jobs and investment over the last 15-30 years, in no small part because the region benefits from having a single congressman who can focus on priorities like navy funding, fishing, coastal infrastructure and hurricane mitigation.  The people of this community share those interests regardless of their partisan affiliation or race. 

Black Mobilians deserve to be counted among and have influence in the community where they actually live, not to be attached to far-flung corners of the state with very different interests.  Each of the proposed remedial maps removed central neighborhoods of the City of Mobile, the beating heart of Alabama's Gulf Coast, and combined them with distant rural areas hours east on the Georgia state line.  The only way to justify such a district is by letting race predominate, which is transparently what you and other liberals believe:  race must come first when drawing districts.  Such explicitly race-based criteria are exactly what the VRA was written to eliminate.

My only question to you and other liberals cheering this case is this:  can you describe, succiently and in common language (which is something Roberts' opinion is not) what evidence there is the map passed by the Legislature in 2021 was an illegal racial gerrymander?  by what metric can we say this map prevents Black Alabamians from participating in an "equally open" political process?  You cannot make that argument without advancing an implicit claim of racial proportionality, which Congress and the courts have been clear Section 2 doesn't require.  That is SCOTUS' error.     

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I doubt you actually believe what you are saying. We both know your “COI” argument is ridiculous in a state where politics and culture largely is racially polarized. You are advocating for splitting up a community of interest, not for keeping one together.

This was a partisan decision as is your support. Just be honest.

I'm passionate about this case because it's a matter of local representation for a community to which I have multiple connections.  My dad worked on the Alabama Gulf Coast while I was growing up, and my brother and his wife live in Mobile.  It's always been somewhat of a second home for me.  I haven't posted any about the redistricting drama happening in NC, FL or even LA, because I don't see this as a partisan issue.  It's about this specific community.

As Alabama's only two coastal counties, Mobile-Baldwin (which together are ~90% of the population needed for a district, btw) is a clear community of interest.    Whether by the French, the Spanish, or the early United States, this region along the Gulf Coast was always grouped together—and separately from the parts of Alabama to the north.  It's still very culturally different from the rest of Alabama today (a fact to which you're happily ignorant); just listen to how effusively it's described in an animus brief that was submitted by Gulf Coast business and civic groups for this case:

Anyone from other parts of Alabama will tell you coastal culture is, well, different. It is difficult for outside observers—even from places as close as Huntsville, Birmingham, and Montgomery—to get their heads around how important Mardi Gras is to Alabamians on the coast.  Stemming from its French Catholic heritage, Mobile is the source of America’s first Mardi Gras celebrations—a fact people from both counties are quick to note when they make friends from New Orleans.  Schoolkids have actual Mardi Gras holidays each year: in 2022, they got—in combination with President’s Day—three straight days off.  Businesses
shut down. Lawyers stop billing hours and get frustratingly hard to find. But the pause is good for the local economy, creating 12,811 jobs.

And as the quote ends with, it's the economy too. The shipping, shipbuilding, commercial fishing, and tourism economy supported by the Gulf Coast make this economy unlike any other in Alabama.  Mobile-Baldwin has been very successful in attracting new jobs and investment over the last 15-30 years, in no small part because the region benefits from having a single congressman who can focus on priorities like navy funding, fishing, coastal infrastructure and hurricane mitigation.  The people of this community share those interests regardless of their partisan affiliation or race. 

Black Mobilians deserve to be counted among and have influence in the community where they actually live, not to be attached to far-flung corners of the state with very different interests.  Each of the proposed remedial maps removed central neighborhoods of the City of Mobile, the beating heart of Alabama's Gulf Coast, and combined them with distant rural areas hours east on the Georgia state line.  The only way to justify such a district is by letting race predominate, which is transparently what you and other liberals believe:  race must come first when drawing districts.  Such explicitly race-based criteria are exactly what the VRA was written to eliminate.

My only question to you and other liberals cheering this case is this:  can you describe, succiently and in common language (which is something Roberts' opinion is not) what evidence there is the map passed by the Legislature in 2021 was an illegal racial gerrymander?  by what metric can we say this map prevents Black Alabamians from participating in an "equally open" political process?  You cannot make that argument without advancing an implicit claim of racial proportionality, which Congress and the courts have been clear Section 2 doesn't require.  That is SCOTUS' error.     

Do you seriously believe most black voters in Mobile would rather be represented by a Republican than a Democrat from outside Mobile?

[Del Tachi]

I doubt you actually believe what you are saying. We both know your “COI” argument is ridiculous in a state where politics and culture largely is racially polarized. You are advocating for splitting up a community of interest, not for keeping one together.

This was a partisan decision as is your support. Just be honest.

I'm passionate about this case because it's a matter of local representation for a community to which I have multiple connections.  My dad worked on the Alabama Gulf Coast while I was growing up, and my brother and his wife live in Mobile.  It's always been somewhat of a second home for me.  I haven't posted any about the redistricting drama happening in NC, FL or even LA, because I don't see this as a partisan issue.  It's about this specific community.

As Alabama's only two coastal counties, Mobile-Baldwin (which together are ~90% of the population needed for a district, btw) is a clear community of interest.    Whether by the French, the Spanish, or the early United States, this region along the Gulf Coast was always grouped together—and separately from the parts of Alabama to the north.  It's still very culturally different from the rest of Alabama today (a fact to which you're happily ignorant); just listen to how effusively it's described in an animus brief that was submitted by Gulf Coast business and civic groups for this case:

Anyone from other parts of Alabama will tell you coastal culture is, well, different. It is difficult for outside observers—even from places as close as Huntsville, Birmingham, and Montgomery—to get their heads around how important Mardi Gras is to Alabamians on the coast.  Stemming from its French Catholic heritage, Mobile is the source of America’s first Mardi Gras celebrations—a fact people from both counties are quick to note when they make friends from New Orleans.  Schoolkids have actual Mardi Gras holidays each year: in 2022, they got—in combination with President’s Day—three straight days off.  Businesses
shut down. Lawyers stop billing hours and get frustratingly hard to find. But the pause is good for the local economy, creating 12,811 jobs.

And as the quote ends with, it's the economy too. The shipping, shipbuilding, commercial fishing, and tourism economy supported by the Gulf Coast make this economy unlike any other in Alabama.  Mobile-Baldwin has been very successful in attracting new jobs and investment over the last 15-30 years, in no small part because the region benefits from having a single congressman who can focus on priorities like navy funding, fishing, coastal infrastructure and hurricane mitigation.  The people of this community share those interests regardless of their partisan affiliation or race. 

Black Mobilians deserve to be counted among and have influence in the community where they actually live, not to be attached to far-flung corners of the state with very different interests.  Each of the proposed remedial maps removed central neighborhoods of the City of Mobile, the beating heart of Alabama's Gulf Coast, and combined them with distant rural areas hours east on the Georgia state line.  The only way to justify such a district is by letting race predominate, which is transparently what you and other liberals believe:  race must come first when drawing districts.  Such explicitly race-based criteria are exactly what the VRA was written to eliminate.

My only question to you and other liberals cheering this case is this:  can you describe, succiently and in common language (which is something Roberts' opinion is not) what evidence there is the map passed by the Legislature in 2021 was an illegal racial gerrymander?  by what metric can we say this map prevents Black Alabamians from participating in an "equally open" political process?  You cannot make that argument without advancing an implicit claim of racial proportionality, which Congress and the courts have been clear Section 2 doesn't require.  That is SCOTUS' error.     

Do you seriously believe most black voters in Mobile would rather be represented by a Republican than a Democrat from outside Mobile?

It doesn't matter.  Section 2 isn't about making sure Black voters are represented by Democrats.  It's about eliminating discriminatory election practices.  No voter has the right to a congressman of his choosing; he only has the right that the election is not stacked against him on the basis of his race.   

And, as a wise jurist once said:  "the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  Mandating a second majority-Black seat in Alabama is opening the door to election practices and proceedings that enhance race-based categories under the law.   

[MaxQue]

I doubt you actually believe what you are saying. We both know your “COI” argument is ridiculous in a state where politics and culture largely is racially polarized. You are advocating for splitting up a community of interest, not for keeping one together.

This was a partisan decision as is your support. Just be honest.

I'm passionate about this case because it's a matter of local representation for a community to which I have multiple connections.  My dad worked on the Alabama Gulf Coast while I was growing up, and my brother and his wife live in Mobile.  It's always been somewhat of a second home for me.  I haven't posted any about the redistricting drama happening in NC, FL or even LA, because I don't see this as a partisan issue.  It's about this specific community.

As Alabama's only two coastal counties, Mobile-Baldwin (which together are ~90% of the population needed for a district, btw) is a clear community of interest.    Whether by the French, the Spanish, or the early United States, this region along the Gulf Coast was always grouped together—and separately from the parts of Alabama to the north.  It's still very culturally different from the rest of Alabama today (a fact to which you're happily ignorant); just listen to how effusively it's described in an animus brief that was submitted by Gulf Coast business and civic groups for this case:

Anyone from other parts of Alabama will tell you coastal culture is, well, different. It is difficult for outside observers—even from places as close as Huntsville, Birmingham, and Montgomery—to get their heads around how important Mardi Gras is to Alabamians on the coast.  Stemming from its French Catholic heritage, Mobile is the source of America’s first Mardi Gras celebrations—a fact people from both counties are quick to note when they make friends from New Orleans.  Schoolkids have actual Mardi Gras holidays each year: in 2022, they got—in combination with President’s Day—three straight days off.  Businesses
shut down. Lawyers stop billing hours and get frustratingly hard to find. But the pause is good for the local economy, creating 12,811 jobs.

And as the quote ends with, it's the economy too. The shipping, shipbuilding, commercial fishing, and tourism economy supported by the Gulf Coast make this economy unlike any other in Alabama.  Mobile-Baldwin has been very successful in attracting new jobs and investment over the last 15-30 years, in no small part because the region benefits from having a single congressman who can focus on priorities like navy funding, fishing, coastal infrastructure and hurricane mitigation.  The people of this community share those interests regardless of their partisan affiliation or race. 

Black Mobilians deserve to be counted among and have influence in the community where they actually live, not to be attached to far-flung corners of the state with very different interests.  Each of the proposed remedial maps removed central neighborhoods of the City of Mobile, the beating heart of Alabama's Gulf Coast, and combined them with distant rural areas hours east on the Georgia state line.  The only way to justify such a district is by letting race predominate, which is transparently what you and other liberals believe:  race must come first when drawing districts.  Such explicitly race-based criteria are exactly what the VRA was written to eliminate.

My only question to you and other liberals cheering this case is this:  can you describe, succiently and in common language (which is something Roberts' opinion is not) what evidence there is the map passed by the Legislature in 2021 was an illegal racial gerrymander?  by what metric can we say this map prevents Black Alabamians from participating in an "equally open" political process?  You cannot make that argument without advancing an implicit claim of racial proportionality, which Congress and the courts have been clear Section 2 doesn't require.  That is SCOTUS' error.     

Do you seriously believe most black voters in Mobile would rather be represented by a Republican than a Democrat from outside Mobile?

It doesn't matter.  Section 2 isn't about making sure Black voters are represented by Democrats.  It's about eliminating discriminatory election practices.  No voter has the right to a congressman of his choosing; he only has the right that the election is not stacked against him on the basis of his race.   

And, as a wise jurist once said:  "the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  Mandating a second majority-Black seat in Alabama is opening the door to election practices and proceedings that enhance race-based categories under the law.   

That wise jurist isn't very wise, he's just not smart enough to see beyond tautologies.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I doubt you actually believe what you are saying. We both know your “COI” argument is ridiculous in a state where politics and culture largely is racially polarized. You are advocating for splitting up a community of interest, not for keeping one together.

This was a partisan decision as is your support. Just be honest.

I'm passionate about this case because it's a matter of local representation for a community to which I have multiple connections.  My dad worked on the Alabama Gulf Coast while I was growing up, and my brother and his wife live in Mobile.  It's always been somewhat of a second home for me.  I haven't posted any about the redistricting drama happening in NC, FL or even LA, because I don't see this as a partisan issue.  It's about this specific community.

As Alabama's only two coastal counties, Mobile-Baldwin (which together are ~90% of the population needed for a district, btw) is a clear community of interest.    Whether by the French, the Spanish, or the early United States, this region along the Gulf Coast was always grouped together—and separately from the parts of Alabama to the north.  It's still very culturally different from the rest of Alabama today (a fact to which you're happily ignorant); just listen to how effusively it's described in an animus brief that was submitted by Gulf Coast business and civic groups for this case:

Anyone from other parts of Alabama will tell you coastal culture is, well, different. It is difficult for outside observers—even from places as close as Huntsville, Birmingham, and Montgomery—to get their heads around how important Mardi Gras is to Alabamians on the coast.  Stemming from its French Catholic heritage, Mobile is the source of America’s first Mardi Gras celebrations—a fact people from both counties are quick to note when they make friends from New Orleans.  Schoolkids have actual Mardi Gras holidays each year: in 2022, they got—in combination with President’s Day—three straight days off.  Businesses
shut down. Lawyers stop billing hours and get frustratingly hard to find. But the pause is good for the local economy, creating 12,811 jobs.

And as the quote ends with, it's the economy too. The shipping, shipbuilding, commercial fishing, and tourism economy supported by the Gulf Coast make this economy unlike any other in Alabama.  Mobile-Baldwin has been very successful in attracting new jobs and investment over the last 15-30 years, in no small part because the region benefits from having a single congressman who can focus on priorities like navy funding, fishing, coastal infrastructure and hurricane mitigation.  The people of this community share those interests regardless of their partisan affiliation or race. 

Black Mobilians deserve to be counted among and have influence in the community where they actually live, not to be attached to far-flung corners of the state with very different interests.  Each of the proposed remedial maps removed central neighborhoods of the City of Mobile, the beating heart of Alabama's Gulf Coast, and combined them with distant rural areas hours east on the Georgia state line.  The only way to justify such a district is by letting race predominate, which is transparently what you and other liberals believe:  race must come first when drawing districts.  Such explicitly race-based criteria are exactly what the VRA was written to eliminate.

My only question to you and other liberals cheering this case is this:  can you describe, succiently and in common language (which is something Roberts' opinion is not) what evidence there is the map passed by the Legislature in 2021 was an illegal racial gerrymander?  by what metric can we say this map prevents Black Alabamians from participating in an "equally open" political process?  You cannot make that argument without advancing an implicit claim of racial proportionality, which Congress and the courts have been clear Section 2 doesn't require.  That is SCOTUS' error.     

That’s a lot of words to say very little.

There are many, many communities that have just as strong ties as the Mobile area, for many reasons. The city of Nashville is arguably just as strong but was chopped in three. Oklahoma City faced the same face, so did Omaha and Kansas City.

Your concerns may be legitimate and found in personal conviction, but the fact is communities that have significant ties based on solely a perceived cultural/economic tie are not prioritized in America.

[tschandler]

Funny y'all have no problems with state governments ignoring Bruen.

[The Mikado]

Black Mobilians deserve to be counted among and have influence in the community where they actually live, not to be attached to far-flung corners of the state with very different interests. 

Dude, I'm from Dallas, TX and the DFW area is a pretty clear set of communities. In the current Congressional map, Denton, Texas is lumped in with the Panhandle nearly a thousand miles away (TX-13) and parts of Collin County are lumped in with Texarkana in the far northeast (TX-04). If I go 10 miles east of where I am into the Mesquite area, within Dallas County itself, the district goes way off to deep rural areas way southeast of here. (TX-05)

I have very very very little patience for Republicans sanctimoniously lecturing about keeping communities of interest together. It's BS and you know it.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Also find it interesting that Black Mobilians have more in common with a white person from Gulf Shores than a black person from Birmingham. I doubt that they’d agree. Race is the strongest polarizer in America, for good or bad.

I was curious if I was just clumping people together by race, so I compared Mobile’s black population to others in the state by life expectancy, and rural blacks are roughly equal to black people in Mobile, low seventies below the state average. Whiter precincts, in and out of Mobile had higher. Most notably is the Daphne/Fairhope area. They all live into the high seventies. The most extreme I found is Census Tracy 23.01 in Mobile, it is 83.7% black, with a life expectancy of 65.2. Across the bay is Census Tract 113 in Baldwin County. 113 is 3.7% black and has a life expectancy of 82.1.

Most of Black citizens in Mobile are in census tracts with 20%+ levels of poverty. Some are 50%+. There is only one tract in Baldwin county that has over 20%+ in poverty. It also happens to be the only majority black census tract in the county. Some tracts have as low as 5%.

In this “unified community of interest” you can find places that you are expected to die 16.9 years younger than others, and have over 10 times the amount of people in poverty. These places cannot, by any reasonable person, be deemed to have a unified interest.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

What’s stopping New York dems from telling their state court to screw itself and passing an egregious gerrymander and daring them to enforce it? You guys are opening up a can of worms lol

[Aurelius2]

As an experiment, I tried to draw a 5-2 map where the Gulf Coast was also kept whole.



Green: VAP 46.9% black, 45.7% white; 2020-prez 54.6% D, 44.2% R.
Purple: VAP 50.5% black, 42.4% white; 2020-prez 62.3% D, 36.5% R.

The main problem with this is that the green district is probably a bit too close for comfort to be considered performing (and I'm not sure if the court's ruling requires a district to be over 50% BVAP if it is still performing with less than 50%, such as how the green district would be if it were 1% less BVAP). I suspect it would elect and reliably re-elect a Sanford Bishop type, though. It also requires a hideous red district splaying out from Andalusia to Anniston and nearly split in half by the narrow isthmus along the Georgia border.

I'm going to give it another try where the purple district sheds some of the Black Belt to green to shore green up further, and the blue district is more selective about only taking in the whitest precincts available in its northward extension. I'm curious to see if two reliably performant districts can be created while also keeping the Gulf Coast together and avoiding border gore. Ideally, it also avoids the precinct-splitting that the green district relies on here to grab the black parts of Eufaula and Phenix City.

If the court explicitly requires both districts to be >50% BVAP, then there's no point in me trying this because there just aren't enough black voters outside Mobile to make that work - it relies on just the right amount of white Democrats in Birmingham, Tuscaloosa and Auburn to shore up the Dem vote share.

[Aurelius2]

Second and final attempt. This one would be more likely to pass court muster IMO, since the Black Belt district, where voting is more racially polarized than the Birmingham district, is the one with over 50% BVAP this time. No precinct splitting this time, and the borders are still pretty ugly but the red district is much less hideous now.



Green: VAP 50.4% black, 42.7% white; 2020-prez 58.3% D, 40.6% R.
Purple: VAP 45.9% black, 45.6% white; 2020-prez 62.5% D, 35.9% R.

[Brittain33]

Note that even if this is successful, it’s denying the African-American population of Mobile the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice to Congress.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1701283668516352494?s=46

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1701294354730565694?s=46

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1701294354730565694?s=46

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1701295315985576211?t=q80C2Ibg8__b9bjCKIJItw&am...

The district Court confirming its prior ruling isn't a surprise, but the following two points are. Especially since Allen said it would ask for a Supreme Court stay, unlikely as it may be, but still has not. But perhaps they were waiting for this procedurally.