I can’t be the only one confused looking at NC vs LA and GA. SCOTUS told Louisiana to comply with their order and just slapped down Georgia. The specific context and history behind the maps for North Carolina mean it hasn’t had the exact same scrutiny.
But by the exact same principle – partisan gerrymandering is diluting the black population in each district. This seems just a lawsuit away from going the same way as Louisiana and Georgia, but that doesn’t seem to be the narrative here. I’m clearly missing something, what is it?
The Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is legal (which is a fucking disgrace), so it’s only illegal if they can show the gerrymandering is specifically racial in nature. I imagine that makes proving illegal gerrymandering a hell of a lot harder.
Gerrymandering starts with a legitimate action but takes it way too apparently. At what point is it illegal? Those other cases focus on racism: youre not giving people a voice because of the color of their skin. However this case focuses on politics. There is no innate protection based on people’s partisan affiliation
I can’t be the only one confused looking at NC vs LA and GA. SCOTUS told Louisiana to comply with their order and just slapped down Georgia. The specific context and history behind the maps for North Carolina mean it hasn’t had the exact same scrutiny.
But by the exact same principle – partisan gerrymandering is diluting the black population in each district. This seems just a lawsuit away from going the same way as Louisiana and Georgia, but that doesn’t seem to be the narrative here. I’m clearly missing something, what is it?
The Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is legal (which is a fucking disgrace), so it’s only illegal if they can show the gerrymandering is specifically racial in nature. I imagine that makes proving illegal gerrymandering a hell of a lot harder.
At the same time, you can show the changes in population in a district, and do a mathematic comparison of how much say they previously had vs now.
But that is still harder, yeah.
Gerrymandering starts with a legitimate action but takes it way too apparently. At what point is it illegal? Those other cases focus on racism: youre not giving people a voice because of the color of their skin. However this case focuses on politics. There is no innate protection based on people’s partisan affiliation