After Alabama was ordered to redraw their Congressional maps, Republicans are facing potential loss of some seats in the House.

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    “Although the majority’s decision is disappointing, this case is not over."

    Is it just me, or does that sound rather menacing?

    The highest court in the country finds the districting lines were intentionally racist and need to be redrawn, and the response is “the fight is not over?”

  • Baron Von J@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    Looks like 5 seats could end up becoming Democratic, which would mean an even split of 217 seats each.

    • TheDogAndTheDragon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      This would only be at the next election right? So it would just make the split more “fair” for what the population in general wants. But the House does tend to go for the winning candidate’s Party during a Presidential election year I think.

      • RedPander@lemmy.rogers-net.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Another issue is timing. State(s) could drag their feet in redistricting and if it gets too close to the election say they don’t have time to complete the courts request. I hope there’s timeliness enforced.

        Also, yes usually the house goes to the winning candidate for the first two years than swaps.

          • taj@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Yup. That’s the way the Ohio ‘non-gerrymandering’ law was written. Just drag your feet long enough, and it goes back to the (Republican-leaning) legislature. And then just drag their feet long enough, and those maps get used regardless of legality (they were ruled illegal… 2, 3x over by the state Supreme Court, but no matter!)

          • taj@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Yup. That’s the way the Ohio ‘non-gerrymandering’ law was written. Just drag your feet long enough, and it goes back to the (Republican-leaning) legislature. And then just drag their feet long enough, and those maps get used regardless of legality (they were ruled illegal… 2, 3x over by the state Supreme Court, but no matter!)

    • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Honestly I’m surprised the SCOTUS ruled this way. With how clearly activist they’ve been for christian nationalist interests, I kinda expected them to just nuke anything that might hurt the GOP

  • Kaiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Good, gerrymandering has been a problem for years. I remember talking about it in my GIS classes during college. Unfortunately its very with modern GIS software. GIS and Gerrymandering.. Glad to see the supreme court starting to take some action on it.

  • zerkrazus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    I read a comment somewhere where someone theorized that maybe they ruled this way to try to quell dissent ahead of a possible decision we won’t like. I think maybe it was the Harper case? Not 100% sure.

    • CynAq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I heard Krystal Ball say it might be a move to somewhat reestablish the trust in the SC after the RvW decision demolished it. I guess both of these ideas make some sense.

      • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        It should concern everyone that any judicial decision was based on politics. This is true of whether you like the decision or not. The elected representatives reflect the will of the people, not the judiciary (in my biased Canadian view, anyway).