Alabama elects all its State Supreme Court Justices, all its State Court of Criminal Appeals Judges, and all its State Court of Civil Appeals Judges, in partisan statewide elections. In 2016 the Alabama NAACP filed a lawsuit under the federal Voting Rights Act, charging that statewide partisan elections invariably mean that African-Americans never get elected to those courts, and that the state must set up judicial districts.
Only whites have ever been elected to the state Appeals courts, and only twice in history has a black been elected to the State Supreme Court, and both were more than a quarter century ago. On February 3, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the state’s procedural objections to the lawsuit are invalid. This clears the way for U.S. District Court Judge Keith Watkins to soon issue a ruling on whether the state’s failure to use judicial districts violates the Voting Rights Act.
The state argued that lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act cannot be filed by private individuals and groups, and can only be filed by the U.S. Justice Department. The U.S. Justice Department these days almost never files lawsuits against states, charging a violation of the Voting Rights Act, so if Alabama had prevailed, the Voting Rights Act would virtually cease to have any usefulness. The Eleventh Circuit decision is 2-1. The majority opinion is signed by Judge Charles R. Wilson, a Clinton appointee; and C. Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee. The dissent is by Judge Elizabeth Branch, a Trump appointee.
If Alabama no longer has statewide partisan judicial elections, it will be more difficult for a minor party to poll enough votes to remain on the ballot, because the more statewide partisan elections there are, the greater the chances that a minor party will poll the necessary 20% for a statewide office. The last time a minor party met that standard, in 2000, was when a Libertarian polled 20.26% of the vote for State Supreme Court Justice.
If the last time that an alternative party was able to retain status was in 2000 and that was accomplished via a statewide judicial race would the abolition of statewide partisan judicial races make it more likely that the ballot retention requirement could be reformed?
1. Another attempt to have gerrymander districts — also for judges.
2. EQUAL ballot access laws in each NEW election.
3. General failure to create 1 or more black majority States from wreckage of CSA —
ie to have black State regimes have the same ROT as in white State regimes.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Chris, in my opinion, yes. The 20% was upheld in US District Court in 1983, but back then the petition was 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, not 3% as it is today. So the more factors that differentiate the vote test as it was in 1983 and related factors, versus nowadays, the better.
1. Ongoing general screwup about USA vs States standing re USA Const./ law /treaty VIOLATIONS
due to guess who — the ever present SCOTUS MORONS.
2. USA Const created by STATES – Art VII — with its requirements/prohibitions on USA govt.
OBVIOUS should be STATE standing and private.
3. ALL sorts of requirements/prohibitions on State govts in USA Const.
OBVIOUS should be USA standing and private.
Too many useless rotted MORON law skooools to count since 1789 —
producing hoards of super-MORON so-called lawyers and much worse HACK so-called judges.