No, #WashingtonPost, the Supreme Court did not say that Alabama had to draw another district "favorable" to Black residents, as your headline wrongly claims. The word "favorable" doesn't occur a single time in the decision.
The word they used many times was "proportional", and the idea behind that word is that the districts need to be equitable to Black residents. EQUITABLE, not "favorable."
Shame on #WaPo for this bad headline.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/08/supreme-court-alabama-redistricting-voting-rights/
#VotingRights #Alabma #SCOTUS #VRA
I mean, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
A proportional resolution can be favorable, and it sounds like this case is arguably relatively favorable, just as the headline says.
Heck, if the requested resolution wasn't favorable then the requester wouldn't have standing in the first place.
@volkris The connotation of the word "favorable" in the headline is preferencing Black voters over other voters. It implies zero-sum. It feeds into the white grievance narrative that Black people are receiving benefits to which they are not entitled, as opposed to merely being ensured their full civil rights.
In legal terminology, it's accurate to say the DECISION is favorable to Black voters. But saying in the headline that Alabama has to draw a favorable MAP is inflammatory and misleading.
But it IS preferencing Black voters over other voters, even if that's the thing that should be done.
Instead of denying that they'd be receiving these benefits, why not pivot and instead emphasize that they are entitled to the benefit?
Why not first accept the reality, but also promote the idea that it's a good thing? That makes for a more durable solution than denying that it's happening at all.
After all, if you deny that something is happening, that makes it easier to reverse later on, because after all, it's supposedly not happening.
@volkris Ensuring that Black voters have a level of ability to elect the candidates they want that is equitable with that of white voters is not preferencing Black voters, it's ensuring that they have the same civil rights as white voters.
It is patently obvious that if there were any legitimate way to argue that the relevant section of the VRA preferences Black voters, the racist supermajority on SCOTUS would have ruled the other way.
Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Just because you're putting a finger on the scale to ensure equity doesn't mean you're not putting a finger on the scale OR that putting a finger on the scale is wrong.
We should own it: We do put this finger on the scale because it is the right thing to do, and so we should keep on putting this finger on the scale so long as it's needed.
Is it is preferencing Black voters, because preferencing Black voters is the right way to address larger issues with society.
To deny what we're doing, instead of proudly owning and promoting it, is to leave the door open to ending the needed practice, since apparently it wasn't needed in the first place under that argument.
@volkris *plonk*