GOP REFUSE IN COURT:POLITICS SUPREME COURT alabama VOTING RIGHTS ACT Judges 'Deeply Troubled' By Alabama GOP's Refusal To Draw Second Majority-Black Districts A federal three-judge panel blocked lawmakers' hastily created congressional map, ordering a special master to draw new lines for the state. Kim Chandler Justice Jackson Talks 14th Amendment History During Voting Rights Hearing The video player is currently playing an ad. MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Federal judges said Tuesday that they will draft new congressional lines for Alabama after lawmakers refused to create a second district where Black voters at least came close to comprising a majority, as suggested by the court. The three-judge panel blocked use of the state's newly drawn congressional map in next year's elections. A special master will be tapped to draw new districts for the state, the judges said. Alabama is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature hastily drew new lines this summer after the U.S. The Supreme Court in June upheld the panel's finding that the map — that had one majority-Black district out of seven in a state where 27% of residents are Black — likely violated the U.S. Voting Rights Act. The three-judge panel, in striking down Alabama's map in 2022, said the state should have two districts where Black voters have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Because of racially polarized voting in the state, that map would need to include a second district where Black voters are the majority or "something quite close," the judges wrote. Alabama lawmakers in July passed a new map that maintained a single majority-Black district and boosted the percentage of Black voters in another district, District 2, from about 30% to almost 40%. The three judges said they were "deeply troubled" that Alabama lawmakers enacted a map that ignored their finding that the state should have an additional majority-Black district "or an additional district in which Black voters otherwise have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice.” “We are not aware of any other case in which a state legislature — faced with a federal court order declaring that its electoral plan unlawfully dilutes minority votes and requiring a plan that provides an additional opportunity district — responded with a plan that the state concedes does not provide that district. The law requires the creation of an additional district that affords Black Alabamians, like everyone else, a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The 2023 Plan plainly fails to do so," the judges wrote. In a hearing, all three judges had pointedly questioned the state's solicitor general about the state's refusal to create a second majority-Black district. “What I hear you saying is the state of Alabama deliberately chose to disregard our instructions to draw two majority-Black districts or one where minority candidates could be chosen,” Judge Terry Moorer said. The state argued the map complied with the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court decision in the case. The state argued that justices did not require the creation of a second majority-Black district if doing so would mean violating traditional redistricting principles, such as keeping communities of interest together. “District 2 is as close as you are going to get to a second majority-Black district without violating the Supreme Court's decision,” Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour replied to Moorer. Abha Khanna, an attorney representing one group of plaintiffs in the case, argued during the hearing that Alabama chose "defiance over compliance" and urged the judges to reject the state's map. "Alabama has chosen instead to thumb its nose at this court and to thumb its nose at the nation's highest court and to thumb its nose at its own Black citizens," Khanna said. RELATED SUPREME COURT alabama VOTING RIGHTS ACT

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

DONALD TRUMP LATEST NEWS TODAY:Jen Psaki Busts Republican Reason For Gun Violence As 'Big Cop Out' Trump Biographer Thinks He Just Threw Eric Trump ‘Under The Bus’ POLITICS DONALD TRUMP JOE BIDEN 2024 Election GOP Governor Makes Surprise Prediction About Trump And Biden In 2024 New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu said a 2020 rematch "is not what America wants." ben blanchet New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) isn't ruling out the possibility that both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump won't appear on the ballot in 2024. (You can check out his comments in the clip below) “It's not going to be that way. Look, I think there's a good shot that neither of them are actually on that ballot," Sununu said on Sunday's edition of "Meet the Press." Advertisement “I think Trump can lose very much if they winnow it down to one-on-one. I think there's a lot of issues that are going to come to bear with President Biden over the next year and a lot of opportunity for the Democrats to find another, another candidate." Sununu's comments follow a recent poll that suggests 75% and 69% of U.S. adults wouldn't like to see either Biden or Trump, respectively, run for president. “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd, earlier in the interview, asked the governor whether he supports the No Labels political organization putting up their own candidate on the ballot next year. “Well, look, according to the polls you just showed about 70% of America is supportive of that idea to not see Trump and Biden on that ticket,” Sununu said. “I heard someone put it once, '70% of America, if it's a Trump-Biden ticket, will be politically homeless.' And I think that's a very good way to put it. They won't have any inspiration. They won't feel very confident about going forward…" The governor, a Trump critic who turned down a possible GOP presidential campaign, later declared that No Labels has an opportunity in the election "like never before." “It would have to be the right candidate. It would have to be someone very energizing, positive, transparent, someone with a good record," he said. Sununu, when asked whether another Biden term or another Trump term concerns him more, pointed to his concerns with having both on the ticket. “I think you're bringing up the exact right point: This is not what America wants,” Sununu told Todd. “It doesn't mean our primary system is broken. It means more of us have to be engaged in the system to make sure that our voice is heard as that 70% of Americans who always want to look forward. With Biden and Trump, all you're doing is looking backwards and re-litigating a lot of drama. Nobody wants that. RELATED DONALD TRUMP JOE BIDEN 2024 Election MEET THE PRESS CHRIS SUNUNU George Stephanopoulos Shocked By New Trump-Biden Poll George Stephanopoulos Grills Vivek Ramaswamy Over Trump Sympathy GOP Senator Says 'We Don't Know' If Trump Could Beat Biden In 2024

DONALD TRUMP NEWS:POLITICS DONALD TRUMP GLENN KIRSCHNER Ex-Prosecutor Sounds The Alarm On Trump's 'Demonstrated Danger' To Witnesses, Jurors Glenn Kirschner broke down over his concern that judges haven't "stepped up to address" the threat of the former president. Glenn Kirschner — a former U.S. Army prosecutor and current MSNBC legal analyst — warned of the threat Donald Trump poses to witnesses and jurors in his four ongoing indictments as he declared that the former president is a "danger." “I am concerned that the judges have not yet stepped up to address the danger, the ongoing danger, the demonstrated danger of Donald Trump to witnesses, to jurors, to prosecutors, to judges and to their families,” Kirschner told SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah. in an interview shared Friday. Advertisement “I hope at some point the judges realize that Donald Trump is a danger to the community and he should be detained pending trial because that will begin to neutralize the threat, in part because you'll take his megaphone away. I think we're going to be having that conversation in the months to come," he added. Kirschner's remarks follow several instances where Trump has hurled social media attacks at prosecutors including special counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. In August, Georgia officials said they're investigating threats made to grand jurors who indicted Trump and 18 others. Obeidallah asked the ex-federal prosecutor whether Trump "eclipse[s] the concerns" he has had toward people he has tried in past cases. Advertisement Before discussing Trump, Kirschner described dealing with a criminal organization that he tied to 30 killings where there was an anonymous jury and other security measures in place due to the "danger" posed by the group. “And guess what? They still got to some of the jurors and some of the jurors had to be dismissed midtrial," said Kirschner, adding that he's tried cases with the "most rigorous security measures" in Washington. “I have an even graver concern for Donald Trump because his reach is so broad, his followers are so rabid at times and so detached from reality. I'm sorry, this is a cult,” he said.

DONALD TRUMP NEWS ELECTION 2024:POLITICS DONALD TRUMP 2024 Election ADAM SCHIFF Adam Schiff: Disqualifying Trump Could Be 'Legitimate Issue' In 2024 Election Schiff said there is a "valid argument" for keeping Donald Trump off the ballot next year. The video player is currently playing an ad. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) thinks there are serious questions about whether Donald Trump is even eligible for the office of president. On Sunday, the California congressman said that there is “pretty clear” evidence Trump is in violation of the 14th Amendment’s third section, which blocks anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from serving in elected office. ADVERTISEMENT Schiff explained why there is a “valid argument” for keeping Trump off the ballot while appearing on MSNBC following earlier reports that election officials across the U.S. are bracing themselves for legal challenges to Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy. “If you engage in acts of insurrection or rebellion against the government, or you give aid and comfort to those who do, you are disqualified from running,” Schiff told host Jen Psaki. Donald Trump speaks to the media after being booked at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta, Georgia, on Aug. 24. Donald Trump speaks to the media after being booked at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta, Georgia, on Aug. 24. JOE RAEDLE VIA GETTY IMAGES “It doesn't require that you be convicted of insurrection. It just requires that you have engaged in these acts," he continued, later adding how that definition "fits Donald Trump to a T." Trump has been accused of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, riots with his claims of a stolen 2020 presidential election. He is currently facing multiple criminal charges over his actions leading up to and during the attacks on the U.S. capital. Schiff said any case against the former president would still face major legal scrutiny, telling Psaki how any 14th Amendment-based challenges to Trump’s candidacy would likely end up in the Supreme Court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority. Rep. Adam Schiff speaks as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. The Capitol holds its final meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 19, 2022. Rep. Adam Schiff speaks as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. The Capitol holds its final meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 19, 2022. JACQUELYN MARTIN VIA THE ASSOCIATED PRESS "That's the big question mark through all of this," the congressman said. “Which is what will the Supreme Court do?” “There are prominent constitutional scholars, as well as prominent progressive scholars who believe that he should be disqualified,” Schiff went on. ADVERTISEMENT “But, will the court take that step ultimately? Only time will tell, but I do think it is a very legitimate issue. By the clear terms of the 14th Amendment, he should be disqualified from holding office." This weekend Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) made a similar case during an appearance on ABC “This Week,” telling anchor George Stephanopoulos there’s a “powerful argument to be made” for invoking the 14th Amendment. “In my view, the attack on the Capitol that day was designed for a particular purpose at a particular moment,” Kaine said. “And that was to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power as is laid out in the Constitution. So I think there’s a powerful argument to be made.” RELATED:Donald Trump NEWS