SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
SCOTUS to Rule on 'Textbook Example' of Racist Gerrymandering
A federal court ruled earlier this year that the 2011 redistricting did constitute racially-motivated gerrymandering and ordered the lines to be redrawn, though voters challenged the new districts as well.
Jun 27, 2016
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will soon weigh in on whether North Carolina's redistricting relied too heavily on race, deliberately clustering large populations of black voters into two districts in an attempt to diminish their influence and sway election results.
The Hill reports:
North Carolina citizens bringing the case forward argued that the redrawn lines were a "textbook example of racial gerrymandering" that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
They claimed North Carolina lawmakers packed black voters from "disparate black communities" into the 1st Congressional District and 12th Congressional District.
A federal court ruled earlier this year that the 2011 redistricting did constitute racially motivated gerrymandering and ordered the lines to be redrawn, though voters challenged the new districts as well. According to Politico's Josh Gerstein, "The latest revision of the map is expected to preserve a 10-to-3 Republican-Democratic split in the state's U.S. House delegation."
Nonetheless, North Carolina Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory and the state Board of Elections petitioned the Supreme Court to weigh in on the lower court ruling, claiming that "the trial court's finding of racial gerrymandering was based on erroneous fact-finding," Courthouse News Service reports.
As the Supreme Court will now consider the case when it reconvenes this fall, the maps will unlikely change before November's presidential election.
North Carolina's voter suppression efforts have come under increased scrutiny since the passage in 2013 of House Bill 589, which eliminated same-day registration, required strict forms of voter ID, and shortened the early voting period, among other things. Citing the widespread disenfranchisement caused by these and other new voting restrictions, voting rights advocates across the nation are pressuring federal lawmakers to restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act before the upcoming election.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
black votersdisenfranchisementelection 2016gerrymanderingnorth carolinaracismredistrictingscotusus supreme courtvoter suppressionvoting rightsvoting rights act
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will soon weigh in on whether North Carolina's redistricting relied too heavily on race, deliberately clustering large populations of black voters into two districts in an attempt to diminish their influence and sway election results.
The Hill reports:
North Carolina citizens bringing the case forward argued that the redrawn lines were a "textbook example of racial gerrymandering" that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
They claimed North Carolina lawmakers packed black voters from "disparate black communities" into the 1st Congressional District and 12th Congressional District.
A federal court ruled earlier this year that the 2011 redistricting did constitute racially motivated gerrymandering and ordered the lines to be redrawn, though voters challenged the new districts as well. According to Politico's Josh Gerstein, "The latest revision of the map is expected to preserve a 10-to-3 Republican-Democratic split in the state's U.S. House delegation."
Nonetheless, North Carolina Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory and the state Board of Elections petitioned the Supreme Court to weigh in on the lower court ruling, claiming that "the trial court's finding of racial gerrymandering was based on erroneous fact-finding," Courthouse News Service reports.
As the Supreme Court will now consider the case when it reconvenes this fall, the maps will unlikely change before November's presidential election.
North Carolina's voter suppression efforts have come under increased scrutiny since the passage in 2013 of House Bill 589, which eliminated same-day registration, required strict forms of voter ID, and shortened the early voting period, among other things. Citing the widespread disenfranchisement caused by these and other new voting restrictions, voting rights advocates across the nation are pressuring federal lawmakers to restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act before the upcoming election.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will soon weigh in on whether North Carolina's redistricting relied too heavily on race, deliberately clustering large populations of black voters into two districts in an attempt to diminish their influence and sway election results.
The Hill reports:
North Carolina citizens bringing the case forward argued that the redrawn lines were a "textbook example of racial gerrymandering" that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
They claimed North Carolina lawmakers packed black voters from "disparate black communities" into the 1st Congressional District and 12th Congressional District.
A federal court ruled earlier this year that the 2011 redistricting did constitute racially motivated gerrymandering and ordered the lines to be redrawn, though voters challenged the new districts as well. According to Politico's Josh Gerstein, "The latest revision of the map is expected to preserve a 10-to-3 Republican-Democratic split in the state's U.S. House delegation."
Nonetheless, North Carolina Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory and the state Board of Elections petitioned the Supreme Court to weigh in on the lower court ruling, claiming that "the trial court's finding of racial gerrymandering was based on erroneous fact-finding," Courthouse News Service reports.
As the Supreme Court will now consider the case when it reconvenes this fall, the maps will unlikely change before November's presidential election.
North Carolina's voter suppression efforts have come under increased scrutiny since the passage in 2013 of House Bill 589, which eliminated same-day registration, required strict forms of voter ID, and shortened the early voting period, among other things. Citing the widespread disenfranchisement caused by these and other new voting restrictions, voting rights advocates across the nation are pressuring federal lawmakers to restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act before the upcoming election.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.