Oops, did Alabama forget to add "totally not to disenfranchise brown people" to their bill?
this post was submitted on 26 May 2026
175 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29907 readers
2671 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Good news, though even the old one looks gerrymandered.
Yeah, just a little /s
Idk anything about Alabama, so excuse my ignorance if this is blissfully naive, but it would be amazing if voter turnout were so high that district 6 (between Birmingham and Montgomery) could unexpectedly flip. I would love for the gerrymandering to be by such razor-thin margins that they lose seats in some of these states rather than gaining them. This was my only worry about the Virginia redistricting. Super disappointing to not see much of a fight back when courts overruled the will of the voters, but at least it's safe I guess. I would've loved to have a rep who at least pretends to care about my community.
When I emailed my representative about the importance of protecting consumer privacy rights from big tech in the vein of the GDPR, all I got back was a response spewing bullshit about "American competitiveness". 🤷🏻♂️
Bro I got a response that was definitely a prewritten response for a group opposing our states bill but for different reasons. They responded to someone else's argument in response to me.
It was very clear because this other group said there was a violation to the second amendment. I only mentioned the fourth. I gave the details of the amendment and explained why I feel this bill would infringe on it. He still only talked about the second.
That's what I'm trying to explain to people. This gerrymandering is likely to backfire, especially in a bloodbath Midterms.
In Louisiana, they got rid of one Blue district, by spreading the votes across three Solid Red Districts, severely diluting them. The district may have gone away, but the votes are still there. Now there are a LOT more Dem votes in those three districts, during an election in which MAGA votes are likely to either flip to Dem, or not vote at all. It is very possible that they may just have taken away one district, only to flip three.
This gerrymandering is likely to backfire
Just sounds like desperate copium.
Not at all. People don't understand a lot of the nuances of gerrymandering, and this sort of reliance on it often backfires, especially as a decade goes on.
The redistricting happens at the beginning of the decade, following the Census. As the decade progresses, many areas change, with some areas booming, others waning, and their original influence on the redistricting changes. For instance, a Red rural area may start to lean Blue as new housing developments around a new industry pop up, and by the end of the decade, that reliable Red district is now very Purple, maybe even fully Blue.
This unusual mid-decade redistricting happened based on 6 year old data, a period of extreme political upheaval. To expect that the political make-up is exactly the same as it was back then is expecting a LOT. Many districts are an unknown factor.
Consider this:
They got rid of one solid Blue district, but diluted three solid Red districts. Those Red districts are probably 30% Blue now. Normally, that wouldn't be enough to win the district, but we have been seeing elections in Trump districts that are showing enormous drops in support, sometimes by 30 points or more. If this redistricting has given Dems a 30% boost in a year on which MAGAs are down 20-30%, those previously solid districts become prime for flips. And that's without even considering that the party make-up may already be far different than expected, because of time.
The thing to remember is that MAGAs always have a plan, but it's always a bad plan. They only see what's right in front of them, and they never look down the road, to the next several steps. In this case, they killed a Blue district, and that's good enough. They have no idea they've endangered three districts. Maybe they won't get all three, but if they flip even one, then their efforts will be a net negative, because now they have three MAGA Congressional reps who now have a significant number of hostile constituents they'll have to deal with, whether they like it or not. They'll screw this up, they always do.
Also just to further add on. The Republicans are basically drifting along by the Trump cult of personality, which if he dies has a solid chance of collapsing. Given how rough he is looking and the seeming exponential increase in his medical shit it's probable he'll be dead by the mid terms, hell he may be dead by the primaries.
Good point, it's a classic Cult of Personality, which means there is no #2, and a whole lot of people who think they should be #2, and not one of them will look interesting to Trumpers. Once he croaks, the knives will come out, and the backstabbing will be glorious. Wear a poncho.
The only worry I have is that the cult will jump to Baron or something. Though I do think Donald basically got lucky with it and the whole thing may be impossible to keep going. Best case is that large elements of MAGA that joined due to COVID and whatnot go back to being inactive.
No, the Cult isn't looking for a successor. Trump is God, he'll live forever.
Trump is #1 and #2.
Finally some good news