The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on March 09, 2009, 01:28:41 PM
-
(http://www.supremecourtus.gov/images/court_front_med.jpg)
March 9 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court limited the Voting Rights Act, ruling that provisions aimed at maintaining black and Hispanic influence at the polling place don’t apply in districts that are less than half minority.
The justices, voting 5-4, struck down a North Carolina redistricting plan that sought to preserve minority voting power in a state legislative district that is 39 percent black. The high court said that district wasn’t covered by the “vote dilution†protections in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because minority voters could elect their preferred candidate only with the help of whites.
“Nothing in Section 2 grants special protection to a minority group’s right to form political coalitions,†Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for three justices in the court’s controlling opinion.
The ruling may make it harder for minority candidates to win election in some voting districts. The court under Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly shown skepticism about governmental considerations of race in voting and other contexts.
The court in April is scheduled to hear arguments in a potentially more far-reaching Voting Rights Act case, one challenging the requirement that the Justice Department give advance approval before district lines or other voting rules can be changed in many parts of the country.
More at Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aukKzcuacfpQ&refer=home)
-
The ruling may make it harder for minority candidates to win election CHEAT AND CLAIM RACISM WITH ACORN'S HELP in some voting districts.
Fixt.
-
I can see the dems coming up with some oddly gerrymandered districts to combat this.
-
I can see the dems coming up with some oddly gerrymandered districts to combat this.
It would be curious to see how they do it, considering that this was all about district gerrymandering in the first place.
-
It would be curious to see how they do it, considering that this was all about district gerrymandering in the first place.
We're talking about dems here. If there is some way to rig an election, avoid the laws they will do it.
-
I can see the dems coming up with some oddly gerrymandered districts to combat this.
Racial gerrymandering is illegal. While political isn't, you're going to have a helluva time claiming it's only political gerrymandering when your new district shifts its racial makeup radically.
-
We're talking about dems here. If there is some way to rig an election, avoid the laws they will do it.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I just think it'll be fun to watch the legal gymnastics they'll put themselves through to make it happen in light of this ruling.
-
If you want to see gerrymandering at it's finest, look up the district for Rep. Mel Watts of North Carolina.....200 miles long and only as wide as the highway in some places..... :rotf:
-
If you want to see gerrymandering at it's finest, look up the district for Rep. Mel Watts of North Carolina.....200 miles long and only as wide as the highway in some places..... :rotf:
Now THAT is some funny legal gymnastics....
-
If you want to see gerrymandering at it's finest, look up the district for Rep. Mel Watts of North Carolina.....200 miles long and only as wide as the highway in some places..... :rotf:
District 12?
(http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Images/NC-CDs.jpg)
-
District 12?
(http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Images/NC-CDs.jpg)
Check out the 17th district in Illinois.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=17
(http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/cong_dist/cd109_gen/cd_based/Illinois/cd109_IL17.gif)
-
District 12?
(http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Images/NC-CDs.jpg)
yeah, this one is famous. or, should I say, notorious? :whatever: