About Expert
Key Topics
Need to write an essay about:
Whether Alabama’s legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority black districts.
Introduction
Historically, Alabama has always been reluctant to adhere to the federal election laws and on account of that Congress passed Voting Rights Act in 1965. In 2010, Alabama’s Republican leaders in an attempt to comply with federal laws, came together with black legislators and crafted plans to redistricting the State House and Senate. According to the plans that they drew, the district with black majority kept proportional to the black electorate. As a result the majority-black district compacted in an increasingly growing black population area. The plans, however, were inconsistent in that they did not include specific norms of 2001 partisan Gerrymander that were drawn to elect white Democrats.
In November 2010, after Republican took charge of the Senate and House of Alabama, giving them a great power to have a control over the redistricting process. However, there have always been contradicting opinions about an interrelation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. As per the suggestions by some critics, the redistricting process has some vital consequences for the electorate and sometimes incumbent legislators come ahead with each other in order to protect their own seat (Ballotpedia.org 2016).
In November 2010, after Republican took charge of the Senate and House of Alabama, giving them a great power to have a control over the redistricting process. However, there have always been contradicting opinions about an interrelation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. As per the suggestions by some critics, the redistricting process has some vital consequences for the electorate and sometimes incumbent legislators come ahead with each other in order to protect their own seat (Ballotpedia.org 2016).
Argument 1
Achieving the district-specific minimum racial ratios was the predominant purpose of the redrawn majority-black district lines.
As per the redistricting concepts, federal law requires that every state contain similar population and every federal district as well as state district belonging to a state should have similar population. In order to determine whether the populations are adequately equal, the specific standards differ for Congressional and state legislative districts. With regards to race and ethnicity, as per the voting rights act (1965), district lines must not attenuate voting rights of racial or ethnic minority community groups. The provision is applicable even if the denial is intended or unintentional. The courts substantially examine in case districts are drawn apprehend decisive electoral power away from a cohesive minority groups that are on a verge of being at risk for discrimination. In Shaw v. Reno case, the courts recognized Equal Protection claim. There was a proof that race was primary aim of a legislative district that is fundamental to establish a violation. Race becoming ‘dominant and controlling’ is constitutionally wrong. Secondly, the primary motive’s proof substantiates a cognizable injury resulting in standing. Other than the context of a dilution claim, it will be hard to demonstrate the existing harm that resulted from districting due to the fact that it is difficult to perceive as to why a particular person was allowed to live in one district or another. Further, a plaintiff can’t establish any personal injury by the act of proving that somebody was added to or removed from district on racial basis (www.supremecourtpreview.org, 2012). However, racial-purpose behind districting plan clearly threatens district representation. The district court took notice of utilization of racial standards by the legislature of Alabama in the determination of putting citizens in majority-black districts in order to up their population level to 1 %. In view of 2010 census, the officials of State sustained the argument that section five under the Voting Right Act needed them redistricting the plan according to race conscious manner.
As per the redistricting concepts, federal law requires that every state contain similar population and every federal district as well as state district belonging to a state should have similar population. In order to determine whether the populations are adequately equal, the specific standards differ for Congressional and state legislative districts. With regards to race and ethnicity, as per the voting rights act (1965), district lines must not attenuate voting rights of racial or ethnic minority community groups. The provision is applicable even if the denial is intended or unintentional. The courts substantially examine in case districts are drawn apprehend decisive electoral power away from a cohesive minority groups that are on a verge of being at risk for discrimination. In Shaw v. Reno case, the courts recognized Equal Protection claim. There was a proof that race was primary aim of a legislative district that is fundamental to establish a violation. Race becoming ‘dominant and controlling’ is constitutionally wrong. Secondly, the primary motive’s proof substantiates a cognizable injury resulting in standing. Other than the context of a dilution claim, it will be hard to demonstrate the existing harm that resulted from districting due to the fact that it is difficult to perceive as to why a particular person was allowed to live in one district or another. Further, a plaintiff can’t establish any personal injury by the act of proving that somebody was added to or removed from district on racial basis (www.supremecourtpreview.org, 2012). However, racial-purpose behind districting plan clearly threatens district representation. The district court took notice of utilization of racial standards by the legislature of Alabama in the determination of putting citizens in majority-black districts in order to up their population level to 1 %. In view of 2010 census, the officials of State sustained the argument that section five under the Voting Right Act needed them redistricting the plan according to race conscious manner.
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the students
Place Your OrderArgument 2
The plaintiffs did not show that race was the predominant factor statewide or in any specific district.
In view of the argument above that in the situation of plans being improperly motivated by race, the court rejects the plaintiff’s claims. The finding of district courts suggest that there is no predominance of racial considerations statewide. This argument is better explained with the help of few evidences. Firstly, legislature’s plans were compared with competing plans being proposed during the process of legislative. In this case, the plaintiff has to show that the legislature have achieved its political objectives in ways that are consisting with the basic districting principles as well as these districting options brought substantial racial balance. Secondly, due to the existence of non-racial factors, majority black districts were same between old and new districting plans. The reason that the plaintiffs didn’t ever propose plans regarding race-neutral districting norms. Further, they lacked counterproposal to prove that the race was the driving force for plans either. The plaintiffs, rather, cite the consistency allowing drafters to keep the similar racial percentages of districts having majority blacks. Also, plaintiffs conveniently picked districts they picked and ignored the ones having substantial variations in old and new plans. It is a seriously flawed method of showing that the race was the main factor in the state. The similarities between old and new plans, however, are described by demography, drafters’ race-neutral goals and consistencies in the changes. Thirdly, white Democratic districts were changed by nonracial considerations (www.supremecourtpreview.org, 2012).
In view of the argument above that in the situation of plans being improperly motivated by race, the court rejects the plaintiff’s claims. The finding of district courts suggest that there is no predominance of racial considerations statewide. This argument is better explained with the help of few evidences. Firstly, legislature’s plans were compared with competing plans being proposed during the process of legislative. In this case, the plaintiff has to show that the legislature have achieved its political objectives in ways that are consisting with the basic districting principles as well as these districting options brought substantial racial balance. Secondly, due to the existence of non-racial factors, majority black districts were same between old and new districting plans. The reason that the plaintiffs didn’t ever propose plans regarding race-neutral districting norms. Further, they lacked counterproposal to prove that the race was the driving force for plans either. The plaintiffs, rather, cite the consistency allowing drafters to keep the similar racial percentages of districts having majority blacks. Also, plaintiffs conveniently picked districts they picked and ignored the ones having substantial variations in old and new plans. It is a seriously flawed method of showing that the race was the main factor in the state. The similarities between old and new plans, however, are described by demography, drafters’ race-neutral goals and consistencies in the changes. Thirdly, white Democratic districts were changed by nonracial considerations (www.supremecourtpreview.org, 2012).
Court Opinion
The three-judge Federal District Court decision was challenged by Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and Alabama Democratic Conference by rejecting their claims of unlawfulness of 2012 redistricting of Alabama’s House of Representative and State senate. These appeals emphasized the claims made by the appellants the new boundaries of the district are giving rise to racial gerrymanders violating the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court opined that in order to evaluate the claims, incorrect legal standards were used by the District Court. The Reapportionment Committee Guidelines suggest that first, it sought the minimization of deviation on the part of district from equally ideal population. That is, not more than 1%. Secondly, it sought the assured conformity with the federal law as per Voting Right Act (1965). So, the act needed Alabama to demonstrate electoral change as though redistricting will not be bringing any retrogression with regards to racial minorities (www.supremecourtpreview.org 2012). These two goals were proved to be difficult to comply with because majority of the districts were underpopulated. So, as Court adds, the suit before it largely emphasizes on the efforts taken by Alabama in order to achieve these goals. The Supreme Court further considers the geographical aspect of racial gerrymandering claims as the District Court referred them as improperly race-motivated. This claim, however, is applicable to boundaries of individual districts. The Supreme Court finally conceded that as per District Court’s opinion that it was the Caucus and the Conference due to which Court considered racial gerrymandering of the state as a whole.
References
Ballotpedia.org,. 2016. "Redistricting In Alabama - Ballotpedia". https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Alabama#Key_terms_and_concepts.
www.supremecourtpreview.org,. 2012. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-895_appellant.authcheckdam.pdf.
www.supremecourtpreview.org,. 2012. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-895-13-1138_appellee.authcheckdam.pdf.
www.supremecourtpreview.org,. 2012. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-895_o7jq.pdf.
www.supremecourtpreview.org,. 2012. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-895_appellant.authcheckdam.pdf.
www.supremecourtpreview.org,. 2012. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-895-13-1138_appellee.authcheckdam.pdf.
www.supremecourtpreview.org,. 2012. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-895_o7jq.pdf.
Give your grades a boost
Just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time.
-
1,168,768 Orders
-
4.9/5 Overall Rating
-
5,052 Experts
+1-817-968-5551
+44-7480-542904
+61-488-839-676