Rate AL-07 after SCOTUS rules on the state’s map on the merits

[Greedo punched first]

You know how to rate this race.

[GALeftist]

Yeah, I do. Safe D.

[Greedo punched first]

Safe R. Who will be the white Republican who replaces Terri Sewell?

[BoiseBoy]

Safe R. Who will be the white Republican who replaces Terri Sewell?

And onto the ignore list you go.

[Greedo punched first]

What I mean is that I think SCOTUS says the VRA doesn't apply to redistricting.

[Greedo punched first]

Yeah, I do. Safe D.

Famous last words.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1490810082002706435?cxt=HHwWhoC91d73tbApAAAA

[Vespucci]

Yeah, I do. Safe D.

Famous last words.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1490810082002706435?cxt=HHwWhoC91d73tbApAAAA

You do realize that this just means the 6-1 map is getting used this cycle, right? If the GOP wanted 7-0, they'd need to immediately repeal the map they just passed, draw a new gerrymander, inevtiably get it struck down by a court, appeal to SCOTUS, and get the ruling stayed again, then they'd need SCOTUS to rule 7-0 constitutional (which I doubt Kavanaugh would want to do) in order to keep using the map past 2022.

Safe D.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Even if the Court wanted to overturn the VRA completely, they won’t even hear this case until after the 2022 election.  So how is this even a question?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Safe D for 2022.  Likely D in 2024.  I doubt this Supreme Court would totally remove the VRA, but it wouldn't have anything to do with this year anyway.

[Vosem]

Safe D, Republican incumbents don't wanna take on too many Democratic voters, even in Alabama. Even if SCOTUS completely axes the VRA's racial set-asides, this seat survives either until some kind of weird realignment.

(Just given the states' geographies and political climates, conditional on the survival of racially-polarized voting, SC/AL/MS/LA/TN will all continue having exactly one overwhelmingly-black seat, unless the federal courts rule that to be an impermissible racial gerrymander, or alternatively a set of national gerrymandering standards passes Congress which forecloses this, like the Olson algorithm. Even then I think there would just be an unprincipled set-aside for majority-black parts of the South, though.)

[Greedo punched first]

Safe D for 2022.  Likely D in 2024. I doubt this Supreme Court would totally remove the VRA, but it wouldn't have anything to do with this year anyway.

That looks like a bad bet. The VRA will be completely gone in redistricting when the case is decided on the merits.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yeah, I do. Safe D.

Famous last words.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1490810082002706435?cxt=HHwWhoC91d73tbApAAAA

You do realize that this just means the 6-1 map is getting used this cycle, right? If the GOP wanted 7-0, they'd need to immediately repeal the map they just passed, draw a new gerrymander, inevtiably get it struck down by a court, appeal to SCOTUS, and get the ruling stayed again, then they'd need SCOTUS to rule 7-0 constitutional (which I doubt Kavanaugh would want to do) in order to keep using the map past 2022.

Safe D.

Thank you.

Just because SCOTUS is allowing 6-1 (and, presumably, 6-1 in SC and 5-1 in LA, too), and think 5-2 is stretching the VRA (or is at least not necessarily required), that doesn't mean they're going to scrap Section 2 entirely at all. And this ruling only passed 5-4; as you said, I can see one more more of the 5 judges who chose to stay the lower court ruling opposing an attempt to kill Section 2. ERM64man is the SnowLabrador/MillienialModerate of the VRA.

[Greedo punched first]

This cycle might be the last one for Terri Sewell.