"Too White" cities?

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
TyrantOfTheWeek's picture
Joined: 12/26/05
Posts: 1147
"Too White" cities?

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/184905/3/Civil-Rights-suit-seeks-to-roll-back-newer-cities-status?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|t

"Their lawsuit claims it was a calculated move by Republicans to create mostly white voting districts in wealthy communities. "

Thoughts?

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

1- doubt highly it was a political move at all.
2- people should be allowed to live where they want to.. can afford too etc.
3- if there are enough people to create a "city" or redistrict then it should be done.. regardless of skin color or political officilation.
4- There are already voting districts that blacks are in the majority, skin color should never be an issue when redistricting, or allocating new districts.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

The major problem I see if that they have allowed small rich subsets of towns to decide to splinter off without considering the vote of the rest of the city. I'm not sure that's legal (but I don't know Georgia law). It also sounds like they are essentially resegregating the school system by purposefully breaking up an integrated district so that all the white kids are now in a new, separate district. I can definitely see where the legal challenge is coming from.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

I think there is already an issue of the subsets splintering off and not considering the vote of the rest... when it comes to states, and rural vs urban voting.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I think there is already an issue of the subsets splintering off and not considering the vote of the rest... when it comes to states, and rural vs urban voting.

No, my point was they took an entire city and let only the subset that wanted to splinter off into a new, separate city, vote as to whether that would happen. I'm not sure the legality of that. That's unrelated to rural v urban voting.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

No, my point was they took an entire city and let only the subset that wanted to splinter off into a new, separate city, vote as to whether that would happen. I'm not sure the legality of that. That's unrelated to rural v urban voting.

Don't you mean county? These were not in a city already, they were only in the county and voted to become a city in that county. I don't see what the problem is cities form all the time within counties, why should the rest of the county have a say in it? If they are close to that city and want to be included they could ask to be annexed.

ETA: Metro Atlanta is like saying Metro Dallas... that doesn't mean they are in the city of Dallas

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Don't you mean county? These were not in a city already, they were only in the county and voted to become a city in that county. I don't see what the problem is cities form all the time within counties, why should the rest of the county have a say in it? If they are close to that city and want to be included they could ask to be annexed.

Were these just unincorporated areas before? The article is short and a little unclear (and frankly I'm not interested enough to research it myself).

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

Were these just unincorporated areas before? The article is short and a little unclear (and frankly I'm not interested enough to research it myself).

Yes they were just areas in counties outside Atlanta that formed cities.

The state legislature allowed local residents in those areas to vote on becoming cities. Other voters in those counties had no say.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yes they were just areas in counties outside Atlanta that formed cities.

Interesting, thanks for clarifying. I've never lived anywhere like that, so I really don't know how they work. I'll be interested to see how the court case turns out.

MommyJannah's picture
Joined: 08/25/08
Posts: 109

I think that as long as a city has met the legal standards of filing for the status of "city", that race, religion, whathaveyou is irrelevant. Should Santa Ana, CA not be considered a city because it has a 75% latino population? Birmingham, AL isn't one because it's almost 75% african american? It doesn't matter what the race is if we want them all to be considered "equal" under civil rights.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"MommyJannah" wrote:

I think that as long as a city has met the legal standards of filing for the status of "city", that race, religion, whathaveyou is irrelevant. Should Santa Ana, CA not be considered a city because it has a 75% latino population? Birmingham, AL isn't one because it's almost 75% african american? It doesn't matter what the race is if we want them all to be considered "equal" under civil rights.

I don't think it is irrelevant. How is purposefully creating a city to dilute a minority population different than gerrymandering?

MommyJannah's picture
Joined: 08/25/08
Posts: 109

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

I don't think it is irrelevant. How is purposefully creating a city to dilute a minority population different than gerrymandering?

Can they prove they created the city to dilute a minority population? That would be my qualifying standard. What I'm saying isn't that it's different, but that in and of itself, race of the population shouldn't have all the weight in deciding whether a particular area "gets" to be a city. I think causality will be extremely hard to prove here, with what the article set forth. The fact remains that very expensive cities/areas to live in may be predominantly republican. I don't know many very high income people who are not. I'm not saying districts should be allowed to create a city for political gain or corrupt purposes, I'm saying that they'd have to prove that's WHY they created it, and I think it'd be hard to do. If they can prove they purposefully created this city and are keeping minority races out by discrimination, it's a completely different ballgame IMO.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"MommyJannah" wrote:

Can they prove they created the city to dilute a minority population? That would be my qualifying standard. What I'm saying isn't that it's different, but that in and of itself, race of the population shouldn't have all the weight in deciding whether a particular area "gets" to be a city. I think causality will be extremely hard to prove here, with what the article set forth. The fact remains that very expensive cities/areas to live in may be predominantly republican. I don't know many very high income people who are not. I'm not saying districts should be allowed to create a city for political gain or corrupt purposes, I'm saying that they'd have to prove that's WHY they created it, and I think it'd be hard to do. If they can prove they purposefully created this city and are keeping minority races out by discrimination, it's a completely different ballgame IMO.

I totally agree. I'm not assuming that that's what happened here. Hopefully that will be determined in this lawsuit. I don't think the race, religion, or political affiliation should be irrelevant when the state/feds decide whether or not a new city can be formed. It deserves some scrutiny.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Why should social issues or choices matter when one is thinking of starting a city? I think population should be the main.. if only factor. Not sure why other factors should matter at all. Maybe I am missing something?

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Why should social issues or choices matter when one is thinking of starting a city? I think population should be the main.. if only factor. Not sure why other factors should matter at all. Maybe I am missing something?

It may violate the Voting Rights Act. That's why they're suing.

MommyJannah's picture
Joined: 08/25/08
Posts: 109

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Why should social issues or choices matter when one is thinking of starting a city? I think population should be the main.. if only factor. Not sure why other factors should matter at all. Maybe I am missing something?

It only matters to a city if its population is diverse?

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Interesting... However, in 1993, the Supreme Court dealt yet another blow to the cause of minority voting rights. In Shaw v. Reno, the Court ruled that North Carolina's 12th Congressional District, the first district in North Carolina to elect an African American to Congress since Reconstruction, was so "bizarrely shaped" that it could violate the rights of white voters. Such "bizarre" districts, the majority suggested, could trigger strict scrutiny even though white voters could demonstrate no specific harm to themselves. In other words, an individual white voter could challenge a redistricting decision by simply alleging that race was a decisionmaking factor in drawing district lines - even absent evidence that the white plaintiffs' ability to participate had been impaired or that their votes had been diluted.

from here-
http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/history.html

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

I don't understand the point of your quote. Of course you can challenge redistricting, regardless of the facts. That's why you bring your challenge to the courts.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

THE POINT is that race was being used in redistricting in order to disinfranchise minority voters.. The purpose of the bill was to keep minority RACE voters being disinfranchised.... The bill was to make us color-blind... Using race to determine whether a group of homes/land/people should become a city or not.. is the opposite of the purpose of the bill. In using race even minority race for districting is a violation of rights. And points to my premise, that only population should matter, nothing else.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"Rivergallery" wrote:

THE POINT is that race was being used in redistricting in order to disinfranchise minority voters.. The purpose of the bill was to keep minority RACE voters being disinfranchised.... The bill was to make us color-blind... Using race to determine whether a group of homes/land/people should become a city or not.. is the opposite of the purpose of the bill. In using race even minority race for districting is a violation of rights. And points to my premise, that only population should matter, nothing else.

Then you misunderstand the law. Nothing about that law is to make anyone color blind. The Voting Rights Act is a violation of rights? The Supreme Court would disagree with you.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Either you are not understanding me.. I did not say that the Act is a violation.
Or I am not understanding the law.. I better go read the entire Act myself.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

I'm not understanding you, but I do think it would be good for you to read the whole act. I'm really not following how your sentences connect to each other.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Ok "No Voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard etc.... shall be imposed or applied by any State etc... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the US to vote on account of race or color."
Disallowing districts or cities to form because there are too many whites is AGAINST this law. IT would be denying or abridging the rights of the citizen to vote on account that they are white.. would it not?

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Ok "No Voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard etc.... shall be imposed or applied by any State etc... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the US to vote on account of race or color."
Disallowing districts or cities to form because there are too many whites is AGAINST this law. IT would be denying or abridging the rights of the citizen to vote on account that they are white.. would it not?

What are you talking about? How is saying that gerrymandering and the equivalent for city formation is illegal denying white people the right to vote? What exactly is preventing these white people from voting? I don't live in a white only city and I still get to vote.