"They will get through the next election cycle while safely keeping black Democrats on the plantation, away from threatening the election prospects of said white Democrats one more time.
That's what this suit is really about.
I assume that now that the City has made such a fuss about a referendum they will actually hold one, or was that just a soundbite for public consumption but not action?
Tell me, what will the "City" (a legislatively chartered corporation) do if the end result of a referendum is the same? Are the districts unconstitutional per se or are they unconstitutional only because of the process?
...I have maintained all along that I don't like the way this was done, especially the ban on referendums which serves no useful purpose.
...be wary of your precedent if one is set. It may make it much harder for white Democrats to draw districts to protect themselves in the future without violating the principles set forth in any such ruling. All of those squiggly lines drawn to keep black Democrats in one voting bloc will surely draw scrutiny.
The legislative acts are repugnant (but legal), but so to is this lawsuit which is truly based on partisan and racial ulterior motives. I don't agree with Skip Alston on most issues, but at least he is wise enough to recognize the real racket that is in play.
...This isn't about protecting black people's voting rights, this law actually improves their prospects. This whole lawsuit and uproar is about protecting white Democrat voting rights. It's quite simple- the more black Democrats that are elected, the fewer white Democrats will be elected.
...It's a good con, but in the end this is about enforcing the Endangered Species Act as it applies to white Democrats.
...Skip Alston for all of his flaws, recognizes exactly what is going on. That's why he supports the law that increases prospects for black candidates.
...This is not about the people, it is about serving the interests of Democrats, white Democrat's in particular. It is passive-aggressive racism and one of the better cons of modern times.
...it is very likely that black voters will see how districts similar to those drawn by the legislature would benefit them and vote for a similar plan. That would be a disaster for white Democrats, and that is why they will not follow up their present impassioned pleas by actually doing what their lawsuit claims is a dire and Constitutional requirement, and that is holding a referendum.
I challenge Mayor Vaughan and the rest of the City Council to prove me wrong by immediately announcing a referendum. Otherwise one can only conclude that they don't truly believe what their lawsuit claims. If they don't and it is established that there is an individual right to a referendum, some citizen will sue the City to enforce that right.
...[This is] an effort driven by white Democrats to protect their own political asses under the guise of challenging racism.
I am still amazed that people are buying into the whole narrative that this is about the GOP trying to limit black representation when the new districts actually increase it.
...ask yourself "if the new districts increase black representation, what is wrong with that and why is there such opposition?"
...At the root of white liberal guilt is the idea that black people think alike and are incapable of acting in their own interests. Hence, blacks in majority-minority districts are suckers for people like Skip Alston, while whites in majority-majority districts are immune to such things.
It's vile, passive-aggressive racist crap. It's too bad so many don't realize that they are guilty of it.
...Believing that a black person is capable of thinking individually instead of as a group is such a profound anti-black statement that is contrary to liberal orthodoxy."