this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
158 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18986 readers
3881 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How long before Republicans ignore the map.

[–] philomory@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Action speaks louder than words. And I don't believe anything a Republican says.

[–] vermyndax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago

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!