Published • loading... • Updated
Analysts: Redistricting to cost taxpayers, while slowly shifting election outcomes
The special primary will decide candidates in four revised districts and add $4.45 million in election costs, officials said.
- Alabama set Aug. 11 for a special primary election in four redrawn congressional districts following an April Supreme Court decision, costing taxpayers an additional $4.45 million.
- The Supreme Court narrowed section two of the Voting Rights Act in April, striking down Louisiana's congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais for improperly considering race when drawing majority-black districts.
- Kate McKnight, a redistricting partner at BakerHostetler law firm, said the old Voting Rights Act conflated partisan and racial voting, while Kevin Morris of the Brennan Center emphasized it was "incredibly effective in blocking discriminatory policies."
- McKnight defended the ruling, saying redistricting will force parties to "run good candidates and draw support in purple districts," though Molly DiRago of Troutman Pepper Locke warned it "will make partisan gerrymandering easier."
- Tennessee enacted a new congressional map following the ruling but did not announce a special election, while no other states with majority-minority districts have yet scheduled special elections.
Insights by Ground AI
26 Articles
26 Articles
InsideNoVA.com+25 Reposted by 25 other sources
Analysts: Redistricting to cost taxpayers, while slowly shifting election outcomes
(The Center Square) - As states engage in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting across the country, analysts predicted taxpayers will foot the bill while changes in representation will come slowly over time.
Coverage Details
Total News Sources26
Leaning Left3Leaning Right5Center10Last UpdatedBias Distribution55% Center
Bias Distribution
- 55% of the sources are Center
55% Center
L 17%
C 55%
R 28%
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
