redistricting order--a minor victory thanks to the ACLU

[existentialist]

What can we do to make the most of it?

As you are probably aware, the Federal District Court for the state of South Dakota, the Honorable Karen Schreier presiding, has ruled that the redistricting of state legislative districts that the state did after the 2000 census is unconstitutional in that it unfairly packed too many Indians into district 27.

This is minorly good because the Democrats will now be likely to pick up another seat in the legislature, and also therefore a few more Indians are more likely to register, and to vote in state wide races too if they feel that they do have a stake in state and national government.

But what happens now? The state could appeal, or settle, or we could have a special legislative session to deal with the redistricting issue.

I will talk to my state representative Democrat Tom Van Norman, but he has been very active and aware in the redistricting issue, and probably already knows more about it than I do.

I could also talk to my state Senator Eric Bouge, but he was one of the authors of the legislation that has just been ruled unconstitutional. I don't think I can persuade him of anything, but I won't miss a chance to mention to his supporters that his insistence on the present plan

(1) has already cost the state money defending a plan that

(2) has now been held unconstitutional,

(3) was essentially racist which is why it was held unconstitutional,

(4) is now going to cost the state more money either for further litigation, or for a special legislative session, or both,

(5) cannot be in the long term interest of the State of South Dakota if--as it seems to have been designed to do--it

(a) tends to perpetuate underrepresentation of a significant
minority of of the people of South Dakota and thus

(b) tends to continue to perpetuate them as a group that is
alienated, distrustful, and antagonistic to state
government,

(c) instead of allowing them to be fairly represented, and
come to feel and believe that they have an interest and a
stake in such government.

And that, therefore, the plan that has been held unconstitutional was not only unconstitutional, but also unwise, and unfair, and simply a bad plan, and that includes for Indian and non-Indian South Dakotans alike.

[liberaliraqvet26]

1. SD has districts??

I thought they had one congressman

[existentialist]

2. South Dakota Districts

We do have only one Congressman.

The ruling has to do with South Dakota State Legislative districts, i.e. the state legislature, which is why it is only a fairly minor victory

it is a victory none-the-less.