George Hartzman;
"The actual redistricting [lawsuit]
will be handled by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
They are very separate issues and will be handled separately."
Nancy Vaughan
.
.
Am I correct in thinking that if the City files a suit on constitutional grounds, there is no immediate cause for an injunction before the election, as it would have nothing to do with the districts and minority representation, but the lack of Greensboro being able to undo it after the census, and would be the only City who couldn't?
.
.
George Hartzman;
"As I've said MANY times before,
I believe, the actual redistricting will be handled
by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
They are very separate issues and will be handled separately."
Nancy Vaughan
.
.
Why is the redistricting being handled
by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice
instead of the city?
What was Brooks Pierce's view
of seeking an injunction based on the map?
Did Brooks Pierce believe the map
was low on minority representation?
Why isn't Brooks Pierce
taking on the minority representation issue?
Does the City's legal department
believe the map to harm minorities?
Why isn't the City
taking on the minority representation issue?
Does the Southern Coalition for Social Justice
have a different take on minority representation issue
than the City and Brooks Pierce?
Was the Southern Coalition for Social Justice
represented in the closed City Council Session?
If so, what was their argument
for going forward with a suit,
and is the City paying them,
and if so, how much?
https://www.facebook.com/nancy.vaughan/posts/10205542596618931
