this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
105 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19146 readers
3168 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
105
Appeals Court Further Narrows Voting Rights Act’s Scope (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/politics
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This court is a Republican-majority appeals court

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jpreston2005 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The case involved districts for county commissioners in Galveston County, Texas, a community of about 350,000 people, where the last round of redistricting redrew a district in which Black and Hispanic voters together made up a majority of voters. The redrawn boundaries reduced their combined share of the district’s electorate to 38 percent, and a lawsuit claimed that doing so violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits drawing maps that dilute minority voting power.

A lower court and the three-judge appellate panel both ruled that the new map was a clear violation of the law.

"Yeah, they broke the law by gerry-mandering your district in order to dilute your voting power..."

But the full Fifth Circuit disagreed, saying that the law does not explicitly allow voters from more than one minority group to “combine forces” to claim their votes were diluted.

"...but you both complained about it at the same time and we've decided that means we can ignore you because magic legal words that totally aren't racist."

The 12 judges in the majority were all appointed by Republican presidents.

Curb Your Enthusiasm music begins

[–] Rice_Daddy 2 points 3 months ago

Does this mean that if you discriminate minorities as a groups, there's no recourse? They probably can point to how the figures as they have, and they can't submit a joint case.

[–] jeffw 16 points 3 months ago

The 12 judges in the majority were all appointed by Republican presidents. Five of the six dissenters were named by Democratic presidents.

Of course

[–] raynethackery 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If we manage to take back the House, we need to pull all funding from the 5th Circuit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] raynethackery 1 points 3 months ago

Oh, I didn't mean cutting their pay. I meant starving the whole circuit of operating funds. Keep paying the judges if we have to but nothing is getting done if the courthouse is closed.

[–] verdantbanana -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

but since voting is a sham and the courts are run by kangaroos nothing short of a riot is going change anything

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Voting is most definitely not a sham; there are real issues with gerrymandering, but the reality is that power is in fact awarded in the US on the basis of who wins elections.

[–] verdantbanana -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The latest round of redistricting in Galveston County, a community of 350,000 people, redrew a district in which Black and Hispanic voters together had made up a majority of voters. The redrawn boundaries reduced their combined share of the district’s electorate to 38 percent.

right there in the article

leaders rigged the election to get elected and to keep holding power

voting is a sham

and both parties participate in different ways to keep people from voting

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's called gerymandering.

And yes, unilateral disarmament is a dumb idea — the Democrats ended gerrymandering in a few states (eg: California) but aren't going to end it nationally except as part of a law to do it for the whole country. Which the Republicans have blocked at the federal level.

[–] verdantbanana 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

keeping the two party system on life support even longer

[–] Atsur 0 points 3 months ago

Just the way the two parties want it!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

5th circuit gonna 5th circuit