The map that was adopted in Michigan's congressional map seems to have reduced the black population in some districts in a way that looks like it may be a violation of federal law. I am specifically referring to the 2 districts that have the highest numerical value which are located in the Detroit area. As they were previously drawn in the 2010 map, the majority of districts were majority Black, with the 13th and 14th districts having 56% of their population self-identify as Black.

However, the 538 tracker shows that in the map adopted, the black population in each district was significantly reduced and appears to no longer be a majority of the district's voting age population. I have two questions: are the 2 formerly majority Black districts majority-Black voting age population as in the last map, and if not, are these maps legal?

Note: this is not a Law stack exchange question because it is covering a political issue that intersects with the law.

  • 1
    Other than "It depends on how the judges that hear the challenge rule", what would you want in an answer? As happens after every redistricting, a large number of maps will be challenged. Gerrymandering and redistricting are pretty fluid areas of law that pretty frequently reach the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS looks a lot different than it did following the 2010 census redistricting. So you appear to be asking people to predict how the current SCOTUS would rule on a hypothetical case. Dec 28 '21 at 21:42
  • @JustinCave as I understand the situation the supreme court has decided that gerrymandering is legal federally and no concern of theirs. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/42653/…
    – Jontia
    Dec 29 '21 at 8:12
  • 3
    @Jontia - Partisan gerrymandering, yes. Racial gerrymandering is still illegal under federal law. But there are also issues of Michigan law. And the Voting Rights Act. And the fact that when the latest round of inevitable challenges inevitably get to the SCOTUS, it is likely that they will at least "clarify" prior rulings. But trying to comment on the likelihood that a particular suit will succeed particularly before the suit has actually been filed so we don't know exactly what arguments the two sides are making seems unlikely to produce an answer that could be marked "correct". Dec 29 '21 at 16:29
  • I'm going to suppose that it depends on "sausage trading." If political party A gets some sausage out of it, and political party B gets some sausage out of it, then they don't kill the horse that pulled the cartload of sausages to market.
    – Dan
    Dec 29 '21 at 20:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .