This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-against-alabama-redistricting-plan/2015/03/25/9545576a-d2f5-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court rules against Alabama plan to redraw legislative districts | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with black challengers who said Alabama’s redistricting plan improperly relied on race to draw legislative districts. | The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with black challengers who said Alabama’s redistricting plan improperly relied on race to draw legislative districts. |
| The court voted 5 to 4 to send the plan back for further judicial review. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the opinion, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy sided with the court’s liberals to make up the majority. | The court voted 5 to 4 to send the plan back for further judicial review. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the opinion, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy sided with the court’s liberals to make up the majority. |
| The challenge was brought by black officeholders and Democrats who argued that the state’s Republican leadership packed minority voters into districts that allowed the election of African American officials but reduced their influence elsewhere. | The challenge was brought by black officeholders and Democrats who argued that the state’s Republican leadership packed minority voters into districts that allowed the election of African American officials but reduced their influence elsewhere. |
| The court’s jurisprudence on when race can be used in drawing legislative districts is complex and at times contradictory. And more than one justice pointed out during oral arguments that minority voters used to come to the court to demand that legislatures specifically use race in order to ensure that blacks and Hispanics be represented in government. | The court’s jurisprudence on when race can be used in drawing legislative districts is complex and at times contradictory. And more than one justice pointed out during oral arguments that minority voters used to come to the court to demand that legislatures specifically use race in order to ensure that blacks and Hispanics be represented in government. |
| But Breyer said that a panel of judges who had approved the redistricting plan had taken an approach that was too mechanical in approving the plan. He said that redrawing plans after a census must do more than simply maintain current minority percentages in districts. | But Breyer said that a panel of judges who had approved the redistricting plan had taken an approach that was too mechanical in approving the plan. He said that redrawing plans after a census must do more than simply maintain current minority percentages in districts. |
| Instead, they should look at what percentages must be maintained in order to preserve the minority’s ability to elect the candidate of its choice. | Instead, they should look at what percentages must be maintained in order to preserve the minority’s ability to elect the candidate of its choice. |
| “Asking the wrong question may well have led to the wrong answer,” Breyer wrote. | “Asking the wrong question may well have led to the wrong answer,” Breyer wrote. |
| The case is Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama. | The case is Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama. |