A split group of Democratic politicians debating redistricting maps in a hearing room, illustrating party divisions on protecting minority districts.
A split group of Democratic politicians debating redistricting maps in a hearing room, illustrating party divisions on protecting minority districts.
Gambar dihasilkan oleh AI

Jajak pendapat POLITICO temukan Demokrat terpecah soal perlindungan distrik mayoritas-minoritas di tengah perdebatan redistricting

Gambar dihasilkan oleh AI
Fakta terverifikasi

Survei POLITICO/Public First yang dilakukan pada 9–11 Mei menemukan bahwa mayoritas Demokrat menyatakan partai mereka harus menanggapi upaya redistricting Partai Republik meskipun hal itu berujung pada berkurangnya jumlah distrik mayoritas-minoritas. Hasil ini muncul beberapa minggu setelah keputusan Mahkamah Agung pada 29 April dalam kasus Louisiana v. Callais, yang mempersempit cara penggunaan Bagian 2 Undang-Undang Hak Pilih dalam sengketa redistricting.

Jajak pendapat terbaru POLITICO/Public First terhadap 2.065 orang dewasa di AS, yang dilakukan pada 9–11 Mei, menemukan bahwa pandangan Demokrat mengenai redistricting berubah drastis tergantung pada bagaimana pertanyaan tersebut disusun.

Ketika ditanya dalam konteks upaya redistricting Partai Republik baru-baru ini dan keputusan Mahkamah Agung dalam kasus Louisiana v. Callais, sebanyak 45% responden Demokrat mengatakan bahwa para pemimpin Demokrat harus melawan langkah GOP "meskipun itu berarti mengurangi jumlah distrik mayoritas-minoritas," menurut laporan POLITICO.

Namun, ketika responden ditanya tanpa konteks yang lebih luas tersebut, Demokrat lebih cenderung memprioritaskan pemeliharaan distrik yang dirancang untuk melindungi kekuatan politik pemilih Kulit Hitam dan kelompok minoritas lainnya. Dalam versi tersebut, 54% pemilih Kamala Harris tahun 2024 mengatakan bahwa melestarikan distrik mayoritas-minoritas tersebut adalah prioritas yang lebih tinggi.

Jajak pendapat ini dipublikasikan saat kedua partai bersiap menghadapi babak baru pertarungan redistricting di tiap negara bagian pasca-Callais, sebuah putusan yang menurut para analis hukum memperketat standar terkait klaim pengenceran suara Bagian 2 dan membuat pemetaan wilayah berbasis ras lebih sulit dibenarkan di bawah hukum federal.

Apa yang dikatakan orang

Reaksi awal di X terhadap jajak pendapat POLITICO menyoroti keterbukaan Demokrat terhadap respons redistricting yang agresif terhadap upaya GOP, meskipun hal itu mengurangi distrik mayoritas-minoritas. Para jurnalis dan lembaga jajak pendapat mencatat adanya pergeseran pragmatis pemilih menuju maksimalisasi kursi, sementara beberapa pengguna mengkritik pertukaran kekuatan suara warga Kulit Hitam demi keuntungan politik.

Artikel Terkait

Illustration of Supreme Court ruling against Louisiana redistricting map
Gambar dihasilkan oleh AI

Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana congressional map, tightening limits on race-conscious redistricting

Dilaporkan oleh AI Gambar dihasilkan oleh AI Fakta terverifikasi

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on April 29, 2026, in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana’s congressional map (SB8) was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, concluding the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to draw an additional majority-Black district. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., called the ruling “a massive and devastating blow,” warning it could accelerate redistricting fights across Southern states ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's April 29, 2026, Callais v. Louisiana decision striking down Louisiana's congressional map as a racial gerrymander (as covered in this series), experts warn the reinterpretation of Voting Rights Act protections could endanger minority representation nationwide. Louisiana has extended suspension of its U.S. House primaries until at least July 2026 amid expectations of a redraw.

Dilaporkan oleh AI

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on April 29 that Louisiana's congressional map, which included a second majority-Black district, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires proof of intentional discrimination, not just disparate impact. The decision, in Louisiana v. Callais, limits race-based redistricting and prompts new maps in several states.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order on Monday allowing its April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais to take immediate effect, bypassing the usual 32-day waiting period. This enables Louisiana to cancel its congressional primaries and redraw maps before the 2026 midterms. The move sparked a sharp exchange between Justice Samuel Alito's concurrence and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent.

Dilaporkan oleh AI

A recent poll indicates narrow support for a mid-decade redistricting amendment in Virginia, with likely voters backing it 52-47%. The measure aims to redraw congressional maps from a 6-5 Democratic edge to 10-1 in their favor, potentially affecting House control during President Donald Trump's term. Early voting ends April 18, with the ballot decision on April 21.

Florida lawmakers approved a new congressional voting map that could help Republicans flip four House seats currently held by Democrats. The map supports President Trump's push for redistricting in Republican-led states. Democrats condemned it as partisan gerrymandering.

Dilaporkan oleh AI

Virginia voters on April 21 approved a ballot measure that hands redistricting power to the Democratic-majority General Assembly, potentially giving Democrats a 10-1 edge in the state's 11 congressional seats. The 'yes' side led with 50.30% of the vote when 82% were counted, according to the Associated Press, which called the race at 8:49 p.m. local time. The outcome could flip four Republican-held seats ahead of November midterms.

Situs web ini menggunakan cookie

Kami menggunakan cookie untuk analisis guna meningkatkan situs kami. Baca kebijakan privasi kami untuk informasi lebih lanjut.
Tolak