All the directvidence confirms it used polical data, not racial data to identify republicans and democrats. The panel declared district one a racial gerrymander only by adopting an erroneous racia policy theory. First they failed to enforce th alternative map required. In a case like this oy such an ternative. Second it hyper entangled rac and politics and makes no sense. Thean believe they needed a raci target in Charleston County to achieve its political goal nationwide because 17 racial tge says nothing about vor turnout, says nothing whatsoever about the prodominant majority votes for the predominantly white Charleston County and i irreconcilable th district ones recent history. Moreover the panel agreeing the General Assembly made 34reu8 changes oer parts of district one without using a racial target. E yen assembly has had no reason to and did n use a racial target. Used political day to da to pursue its political goals. If left uncorrected this wl undermine the Courts Holding th
The oral argument of alexander verse southarolina, a case on gerrymandering. It centers around two districts in selfcare liner that we divided by the republicancontrolled budget lar. The South Carolina state conference of the ncpiled suit alleging the changes in the voting districts i lootedhe voting power of thousands of blac voters. Aower court agreed and appealed to the nations and an appeal to the nations highest court followed. Mr. Gore . District one is not a racial gerrymander. Ther, the General Assembly largely preserved district one om the constitutional benchmark plan and made anges based on traditional criteria and politics. The panel acowledged the General Assembly pursued a political goal of ireasing district ones republican vote share. It achved that goal by ming republicans into the district and democrats out of the district. All the evidence confirms it used Political Data and not racial data to identify republicans andemocrats. The panel declared district one a racial
Cspans campaign 2024 coverage, watch as we follow candidates othcampaign trail. Just and all. Campgn 2024, span now, our free mil video app, anytime online. Cspan, your unfiltered view of politics. The u. Ssupreme court heard oral argument a case on Congressional Redistricting and gerrymandering. It centers around two distris divided by the public legislator. There was a suit filed alleging changes devoting the voting power of thousands of black voters. There was an appeal and it went to the higst. There is until june for a ruli. To identify republicans and democrats. The panel declared district one a racial gerrymander only by adopting an erronacial policy theory. First they failed to foe the alternative map required. In a case lis only sh an alternative. Second it hyper entangled race and politics and makes no s the panel believe they needed a racial target in Charleston County to achieve itsical goal nationwide because 17 voter turnout, says nothingt whatsoever about t prodominant m
We went to keep you updated on what is happenin mr. Chief jut please the court. Dirict one is not a racial gerrymandering. Rather, the General Assembly largely preserved at from the cotitutional benchmark plan. Th panelcknowledged that the General Assembly pursued a political goal of increasing district 1s republican vote share. It achieved that both right moving democrats out of the district and republicain it itical, not racial data,deify republicans and democrats. First, the panel failed to enforce ternative map requirement. Circumstantial case like this,nly such an alternative can disentangle race and politics. Second, the racial target theory hyper entangles race and politics and makes no sense. The panel believed the generals General Assembly needed a racial target to achts goal. But the racial targets is nothing about voter turnout, nothing about the predominant majority of voters think dominantly White Charleston county and also is irreconcilable with district 1s cent electoral
All the direct evidence conrms it used Political Data, not racial data to identify republicans and mocrats. The panel declared district one a racial gerrymander only by adopngn erroneous racial policy theory. Fit ey failed to enforce the alternative map required. In a case like this only such an alternative. Second iter entangled race and politics and makes no sense. The panel believe they needed a racialarget in Charleston County to achieve its political goal nationwide because 17 racial target says nothing about voter turnout, says nothing atsoever about the prodominant majority votesorhe predominantly white Charleston County a is irreconcilable with district ones recent history. Moreover t panel agreeing the General Assembly made 3eu changes in other parts of district one without using racial target. The yen assembly has had n reason to and did not use a racial target. It used political d data to pursue it political goals. Ifeft uncorrected this will undermine th Courts Holding that