this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18904 readers
3723 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
all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 47 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Pretty sure this will end up like the similar Alabama case in 2022. "Sure it illegally disenfranchises voters, but it would be unfair to fix it so close to an election. Go ahead and rig this election, but promise to change (not fix, just change) it after the election."

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 24 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It seems like we are always to close to an election if the change being discussed would be positive.

Never too close to jam a conservative justice onto the Supreme Court though. Or trash part of the government on the way out.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Someone should do something

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Gotta love the coding here.

R's: Can we be say... THIS racist in our districting?

Court: For the second time no.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I feel like the article didn't give me enough information. I think Louisiana was the state that got slapped down by a court for something or other racially discriminating in the past, but I didn't see mention of that so maybe it was another southern racist shithole like Alabama? Anyway, I guess this'll likely come round in a future news cycle. Maybe I'll learn more about it from an article then.

[–] Ranvier@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yes that's what happened. One court slapped it down for unfairly reducing minority representation in violation of the voting rights act, so this map was drawn to increase minority representation. Now these two judges struck down the new map saying basically "I think it should be unconstitutional to consider race at all when drawing districts, even if it's to make sure they aren't being unfairly diluted, voting rights act is unconstitutional." It's supreme court bait to try and get them to strike down more of the voting rights act with their same reasoning they used to strike down affirmative action policies. If the supreme court decides to take this up eventually, I'd say the voting rights act days are numbered unfortunately with this court.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago

Thanks for clarifying. I'd say we're about fucked.