On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Alabama’s current legislative redistricting plan is invalid. Here is the decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v Alabama. The decision is by Justice Stephen Breyer. After the 2010 census, the legislature’s redistricting plan in 2011 included 8 State Senate districts with a Black majority, and 27 House districts with a Black majority (out of 35 State Senate districts and 105 House Districts). The Legislative Black Caucus and the Alabama Democratic Conference sued, arguing that many of the Black-majority districts contained too many Black voters (many were over 70% Black). The Black Caucus and Democratic Conference argued that a better plan would have spread them out somewhat so that Black voters would have had influence in a larger number of districts.
There are also other complicated aspects of the case, relating to Alabama’s policy of letting legislators from a particular county have decision-making power over county government for that particular county. The groups that filed the lawsuit especially objected to the legislative redistricting plan for Jefferson County, in which the county was split into eleven different state house districts, giving each of those eleven house members power in Jefferson County government, even though many of them only represented a tiny slice of Jefferson County.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision also faults the lower court (which had upheld the districts) for denying standing to one of the groups that filed the lawsuit. It is now somewhat likely that Alabama will hold legislative district elections in 2016. Normally, Alabama elects all its state legislators, for both houses, to four-year terms in midterm years, and there are no legislative elections in presidential years. UPDATE: see this analysis of the decision by Rick Hasen.
This is a good ruling, in that it means that 3rd parties and Independents can zero in on some legislative seats and get some good publicity.
I did not read whether the Court cleared the existing district lines for determining how many signatures would be needed on petitions. This would be a good time to test my theory, that one should get all their paperwork together, and go the Secretary of State’s Office in Montgomery, plunk down the average filing fee paid by the Democrats and Republicans, and demand to be qualified for that seat.
Any takers?
This may be that one little prayer we have hoped would be answered.
Share your thoughts.
I’ve just learned the Democrats charged last time, an average of $1,116.53. I didn’t think to ask what would be the party’s requirement if they could not pay the fee. The Alabama State Statutes is not clear on this.
Share your thoughts, all of you who live in Alabama!
One more SCOTUS step on the long road to Civil WAR II — i.e. a RACE WAR — esp. blacks vs. hispanics in many States.
The EVIL MORON lawyers and SCOTUS hacks can not detect —
1. the UNEQUAL votes for each gerrymander hack winner.
2. the UNEQUAL total votes in each gerrymander concentration camp district.
3. the about 30 percent minority rule –
about 1/2 votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander districts = about 1/4 CONTROL the regime.
Reality – each gerrymander hack monster wants to win with at least 55 percent of the gerrymander district votes —
a *safe* 10 percent winning margin.
Thus the JUNK in the case about 55 versus 70 percent [packed] hack winners.
—-
NO primaries.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. = NO safe seats.
How STONE AGE primitive is the AL regime regarding the State legislature hacks having dictator direct power over the counties in *their* gerrymander hack districts ???
In sane regimes, each local govt is independent / separate from the state and other local govts.
Is there a need for a second liberation of AL by another Union Army such as the Gen. Sherman 1864-1865 Army in GA ???
— to bring REAL Democracy to AL the very hard way.
See the destruction of the Axis Powers in WW II – and the later Democracy elections in Germany, Italy and Japan.
The SCOTUS was clearly embarrassed by the plaintiff’s claim that having equal population districts resulted in racial gerrymandering.
The maps in Appendix C of Breyer’s opinion should be used to illustrate a dictionary definition of gullible.
Race WAR gerrymander Math 00001 —
Race Gang X has 40 percent of the total votes.
The Race Gang X manages (via the SCOTUS hacks) to win a bare majority of all cracked gerrymander districts.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 cracked gerrymander districts = 1/4 control
— spare 15 percent of the total votes.
Thus — 40 percent controls the 60 percent.
Civil WAR II [RACE W-A-R] starts on day 1 of the new regime.
—
STOP the SCOTUS MORONS from Hell.
i.e. the SUPER-MORON AL opinion now ranks along with the 1857 Dred Scott DISASTER opinion of DOOM by the then robot party hacks.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo Rep: Since you are a strong proponent of PR, explain how you would design an election so that 40% of the winners were of the African-American race? I keep reading and hearing a lot about PR, but I don’t quite understand it. I remember in the little town where I was raised in Florida, had an annual election for Town Council. There could only be 5 members of the Council elected, and the five candidates who receive the highest vote, i.e., 1st,2nd,3rd,4th, and 5th, were declared the winners.
Let us say, that the population of this town was 40% African-American, and the Courts ruled they wanted the membership of the Town Council to be at least 40% African-American.
How would your design a ballot to obtain a 40% African American membership? What if only 1 African American ran, and he/she placed 6th in the number of votes received.
In order to comply with the Court Order, would the existing Council have to automatically give the 6th place African-American candidate a seat, then allow the remaining candidates who placed 1st through 4th to fill out the remainder of the Council seats? This still would not be 40% – it would even by appointment – be only 20% African-American.
Then, what would the Council have to do? Find a person who was African-American and not even a candidate, but would agree to serve on the Council. With the 6th place African-American finisher,and the appointed African-American, this would be a 40% African-American makeup. The Courts might be satisfied, and the African-Americans citizens might be elated, but would this be fair to the remaining 60% of the citizens of the town?
I just see a lot of problems with PR, unless you can explain to me that PR would not work this way.
AI,
Cumulative voting is used in Chilton County. A voter gets one vote for each person being elected. They may use all the votes for one candidate, or distribute them among several candidates.
There are 7 county commissioners, and on the ballot each candidate is listed seven times. The elections are partisan, so each party can nominate 7 candidates, that means the Republicans will generally have 7 candidates, and the Democrats have however many file.
This tends to ensure that the Republican vote will be distributed among their candidates. In 2012, the Democrats had 4 candidates and elected 2, including the one black commissioner. Had the Republican vote been distributed perfectly, each candidate would have received 11,929 votes and all would have been elected.
Chiton County is about 10% black, so it works out OK as long as everyone knows who the black candidate is. Bobby Agee, who is black, has been elected since 1988. When he retires, it may be more challenging to elect a black candidate if more than one run.