The map will likely add a Black — and Democratic — member to the delegation.

A federal court has picked Alabama’s new congressional map, which will likely result in an additional Black — and Democratic — member in the delegation.

The new map came after the same panel of federal judges twice found that lines drawn by the GOP-dominated Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by weakening the power of Black voters. The new lines will be used for at least the 2024 elections, the state’s Republican secretary of state said on Thursday, though Alabama Republicans have vowed to fight them for future cycles.

The map gives greater electoral power to Black residents, who make up about one-quarter of the state’s population. And it will very likely mean Republicans lose one seat in their thin majority, imperiling their already tenuous hold on the lower chamber even before battleground districts come into play.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    24·
    1 year ago

    Imagine if all the red states where the GQP electorally assaulted the voting districts (and it was almost all of them, thanks ALEC) had to go to the goddamned supreme court to get it resolved which the arrogant GQP then flat-out refused to do! JUST to eke out a sliver of balance back to these extremely unfair maps.

    See more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2021/nov/12/gerrymander-redistricting-map-republicans-democrats-visual

    Cheaters. Crooked as sweet fuck-all, no wonder they love that orange rapist shitbag.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      10·
      1 year ago

      I mean, this literally used to be part of the Voting Rights Act, that states with a history of racist gerrymandering would have to get federal clearance on things like their election maps.

      That’s what Shelby County v. Holder was about. Making it easier for states to engage in racist gerrymandering because the conservative justices like it.

      They claimed the preclearance requirements were unconstitutional because they were based on old data (not a legitimate reason to find it unconstitutional) in spite of the fact that the VERY CASE THEY WERE RULING ON proved the exact relevant need for the law they were striking down.