U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to Republican-drawn Texas electoral district

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by Black and Hispanic voters accusing the Republican-led Texas legislature of intentionally redrawing a state Senate district to diminish their political clout, part of broader challenge to congressional and state legislative maps in the state.

The justices declined to review a ruling by a three-judge federal district court panel denying an injunction against the reconfigured state Senate district sought by the challengers. The plaintiffs have argued that the district's redrawn boundaries resulted from intentional racial discrimination against them in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The dispute centers on a state Senate district that includes part of the city of Fort Worth in north-central Texas.

The district is currently held by Democratic state Senator Beverly Powell. But she dropped her re-election bid last April, calling the race "unwinnable" because of the way the legislature had redrawn the district's boundaries. Following the Nov. 8 election, the newly configured district will be represented by Republican Phil King, who ran unopposed.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-150200789.html

[dchill]

1. Balls and strikes.

[CincyDem]

2. Games are always easier to win when you bring your own umps and refs. n/t

[pfitz59]

3. Districts ought follow practical geographic boundaries to consolidate interests

instead they are splintered and snaked to consolidate or split desired voting blocks. it is a crime, but corrupt courts say otherwise

[NullTuples]

4. The Roberts court simply reframes racial bias as partisan bias, which they are fine with.

Because then they got with, "how a state holds its elections is none of our business".

But make no mistake; many of those district boundaries are based on race.

And if the SCOTUS can't or won't protect America from entire state governments being openly racist, what good is it?

[orangecrush]

5. +1

[Marthe48]

8. Well said

And in states like Ohio, the r. legislature flagrantly ignore their own state supreme court orders about the illegal, unconstitutional, gerrymandered maps.

r's are cheating losers, and I'd say they can get bent, but they already are.

[LudwigPastorius]

12. Didn't you hear?

The Voting Rights Act is so yesterday.

[Cattledog]

6. You still run and fight and not just say oh well it's not winnable.

[Marthe48]

9. You wear the cheaters out

We are backing strong candidates with good characters. Cheaters are losers, that's why they can't win unless they cheat. And they know it.

[h2ebits]

20. Yes--

I read this article in disbelief. Talk about "taking my ball and going home." Basically, the Democrat in office has betrayed her constituents by not running.

[republianmushroom]

7. Of course

[bullimiami]

10. They just don't understand "equal protection"

It means George Bush deserves to be president but a bunch of minorities getting equally represented, not so much.

It’s hard to be a Supreme Court “justice”.

[LudwigPastorius]

11. The SCROTUS (Supreme Court Republicans Of The United States) reassert...

the fucking they gave us back in 2019 with Rucho v. Common Cause.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

John Roberts washes his hands: "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts"

Elena Kagan dissents: "Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent."

[FBaggins]

13. As usual... the knee-jerk response assumes bias. While ignoring...

1) No liberal justices dissented from the denial

2) The denial had nothing to do with the merits.

[LudwigPastorius]

15. Can you explain how a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear this case, but...

the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction for an appeal? Is it because it didn't go through an Appeals Court first?

(From what I understand, the Supreme Court dismissed this for want of jurisdiction.)

Thanks

[FBaggins]

16. Sure

The law requires appeals to be filed from this type of decision within 30 days... but Brooks waited 121.

His argument is that the lower court made a second ruling 90 days later (really just fleshing out the first one) and this appeal was in time for that... but it didn't fly. It's well written, but I'm not sure how his attorneys even think that would work. What happens if SCOTUS decides to hear an appeal of the later ruling but the earlier one stands?

In the end - it was a request for a preliminary injunction while the lower courts hear the full appeal... for a race that already had an election. The likelihood that they were going to do something substantial was tiny.

[patphil]

14. She should have run anyway.

if nothing else, the voters would have had an opportunity to see what Abbott and the Republicans have done.
Surrender just makes it easier for them.

[Icanthinkformyself]

18. The law

could be as blatant as "This law is specifically intended to disenfranchise People of Color (my term, not, necessarily the one they would use), Democrats (they would bastardize that one as well) and anyone else we don't like." The six sicko SCOTUS would approve. They are slowly burning it all down and the media will, somehow, see it as the fault of Democrats for not stopping them, as the press throws a few more logs on the bonfire. Just another day in pair-o-dice.

[ZonkerHarris]

19. The Corrupt Roberts Court? What a shock