Excerpt
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): We turn now to Supreme Court arguments today on the intersection of race and politics.
Alabama Democrats are arguing that the state legislature has packed minorities and Democrats into too few districts, in violation of voting rights laws. But that’s open to interpretation, and it fell to the high court to tackle that today.
And, as always, Marcia Coyle was in the chamber for “The National Law Journal” and for us.
So tell me about this intersection and how it played out today.
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: OK.
Well, after the 2010 census, the Republican-led Alabama legislature engaged in redrawing state legislative districts, just like other states were doing, following the census. The plan they came up with was challenged by the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and the Alabama Democratic Conference, who claimed that the plan was what we called a racial gerrymander because it packed into existing majority black districts more majority voters in order to make the surrounding districts more white and more likely to vote Republican.
GWEN IFILL: Now, when we talk gerrymander, that is generally a very elaborate way of drawing districts for certain purposes. Does it matter more constitutionally or according to the law whether these lines are drawn for racial reasons or for other reasons?
MARCIA COYLE: It does. It matters a lot. There are two really background principles here to keep in mind.
First, the Supreme Court in its voting rights decisions has said that race cannot be the predominant factor in redistricting.
GWEN IFILL: It can be a factor, but not the main factor.
MARCIA COYLE: Right. It can be a factor, but not the main one. And if it is the main one, it violates the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment