Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
How the Supreme Court may have helped Republicans take the House
Gerrymanders and the SCOTUS are the reasons why the GOP won control of the House
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/republicans-take-house-yes-thanks-trumps-scotus-rcna57362?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
Millions of Americans cast their votes in the midterm elections, but the Supreme Court may have been the one to actually determine control of the House of Representatives, which Republicans will now control by a narrow margin. It’s important to understand how we got here. Specifically, the fact that one major Supreme Court case and two shadow docket orders almost certainly allowed the Republican Party to gerrymander its way into this victory.
Over the past year, federal judges in three different states have found that congressional district maps likely violate the Voting Rights Act. These maps amounted to illegal racial gerrymanders which diluted the voting rights of minority voters. The solution for this problem is to replace the illegal legislative district lines with new lines, and in each case to draw an additional majority-minority district. This would have created three additional congressional districts, which happen to heavily favor Democrats. But the conservative Supreme Court stepped in to prevent this remedy.
Back in February, a five-to-four majority of the Supreme Court said Republican-drawn congressional districts in Alabama should remain in effect despite the fact that a three-judge panel (two of whom are appointees of former President Donald Trump) ruled that those congressional districts likely violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Under the Republican-drawn map, Black people would have been a majority in one of the state’s seven House districts, but are one-fourth of the voting age population in the state. A plan like this dilutes Black voting power. The solution to this problem, as the lower federal court noted, is to create another majority-minority district.
But a bare majority of the court, in a so-called shadow docket ruling, let Alabama’s likely illegal maps stand. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito suggested that there simply wasn’t time to draw legal district lines before the primary elections, when — spoiler alert — there absolutely was. The fact that the Supreme Court issued this order on its shadow docket means the case came to the court as an emergency appeal, and it made its ruling without the benefit of oral arguments, a full briefing by each side, or with a decision fully explaining its reasoning. Five members of the court let Alabama’s maps go into effect, while agreeing to hear the challenge to Alabama’s districts in October. After oral arguments in the case, which were held Oct. 4, it seems clear that the court allowed Alabama’s congressional map to be used during the midterm elections, in keeping with its apparent plans to whittle away at what is left of the protections contained in the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court’s order in the Alabama case had a ripple effect. In Georgia, a district court judge found that that state’s House map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The judge concluded that the state should draw another majority-minority district. But because the Supreme Court had already signaled in the Alabama case that it was too late in the game (again, it wasn’t) to redraw the maps, the court let Georgia’s maps be used for the midterm elections as well.
Over the past year, federal judges in three different states have found that congressional district maps likely violate the Voting Rights Act. These maps amounted to illegal racial gerrymanders which diluted the voting rights of minority voters. The solution for this problem is to replace the illegal legislative district lines with new lines, and in each case to draw an additional majority-minority district. This would have created three additional congressional districts, which happen to heavily favor Democrats. But the conservative Supreme Court stepped in to prevent this remedy.
Back in February, a five-to-four majority of the Supreme Court said Republican-drawn congressional districts in Alabama should remain in effect despite the fact that a three-judge panel (two of whom are appointees of former President Donald Trump) ruled that those congressional districts likely violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Under the Republican-drawn map, Black people would have been a majority in one of the state’s seven House districts, but are one-fourth of the voting age population in the state. A plan like this dilutes Black voting power. The solution to this problem, as the lower federal court noted, is to create another majority-minority district.
But a bare majority of the court, in a so-called shadow docket ruling, let Alabama’s likely illegal maps stand. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito suggested that there simply wasn’t time to draw legal district lines before the primary elections, when — spoiler alert — there absolutely was. The fact that the Supreme Court issued this order on its shadow docket means the case came to the court as an emergency appeal, and it made its ruling without the benefit of oral arguments, a full briefing by each side, or with a decision fully explaining its reasoning. Five members of the court let Alabama’s maps go into effect, while agreeing to hear the challenge to Alabama’s districts in October. After oral arguments in the case, which were held Oct. 4, it seems clear that the court allowed Alabama’s congressional map to be used during the midterm elections, in keeping with its apparent plans to whittle away at what is left of the protections contained in the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court’s order in the Alabama case had a ripple effect. In Georgia, a district court judge found that that state’s House map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The judge concluded that the state should draw another majority-minority district. But because the Supreme Court had already signaled in the Alabama case that it was too late in the game (again, it wasn’t) to redraw the maps, the court let Georgia’s maps be used for the midterm elections as well.
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
