How long before Republicans ignore the map.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
In a statement, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, a Republican, said the state would comply with the court’s preliminary injunction to administer the fast-approaching 2024 elections “in accordance with the map the federal court has forced upon Alabama.” Candidates face a November 10 deadline to qualify for Alabama’s March 5 primary elections.
But Allen said the state would continue its legal fight against the map’s use in future elections when judges conduct a full hearing on the underlying merits of the case.
Action speaks louder than words. And I don't believe anything a Republican says.
They already tried that tactic. They also ignored the order. They literally said "thanks for your opinion but no." This happened because of that "opinion." I have no doubt the corrupt right-wing fuckers that run my state will weasel out of this somehow.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal court on Thursday approved a new congressional map in Alabama that significantly boosts the Black population of a second district and could represent a pickup opportunity for Democrats in next year’s elections.
The action by the three-judge panel – along with the outcomes of several other closely watched redistricting cases around the country – could help determine which party controls the US House of Representatives after 2024.
The court’s decision to pick a map that creates a district in a southeastern swath of Alabama with a 48.7% Black voting-age population also concludes this phase of a legal saga that saw the US Supreme Court affirm a key part of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark civil rights law that has been chipped away by conservative justices in recent years.
The redistricting fight has drawn national attention – as a test of the potency of the nearly 60-year-old Voting Rights Act and how judges would respond to what critics called open defiance of federal court orders by state officials in Alabama.
Late last month, the US Supreme Court rebuffed the second effort by Alabama state officials to draw a map without a second Black-majority district or something close to it.
But Allen said the state would continue its legal fight against the map’s use in future elections when judges conduct a full hearing on the underlying merits of the case.
The original article contains 693 words, the summary contains 231 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!