Currently 1 out of 7 of them are Black majority, while about 2/7 people in Alabama are Black. It’s illegal racial gerrymandering that keeps it this way.
2/7 people being black does not automatically mean that 2/7 districts should be Black majority. It really depends on how clustered together those 2/7 people are.
If they live evenly spread out in the state, zero of the districts should be Black majority. If they are clustered in big groups (racially divided districts), then it makes more sense for them to be a majority in some places.
As an outsider, I assume the racial divide is clear enough that dividing the districts by ethnicity makes some sense(?)
–––––
TIL thanks to your post: Since ~2020 ethnicities are generally capitalised.
Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized. Therefore, use “Black” and “White” instead of “black” and “white” (do not use colors to refer to other human groups; doing so is considered pejorative)
https://blog.ongig.com/diversity-and-inclusion/capitalize-race/
Hilarious that capitalisation of a colour is suddenly supposed to make that word not be a colour. Yeah, if I’m writing white as White, it is definitely not a colour any more…
Thanks for the article linked. That map was great for finally seeing what, exactly, people are talking about. It looks like Alabama is mostly White with two big-ish and a couple small clusters of Black voters. They achieved the one Black majority district by CD-7 basically extending two long tendrils to "eat" much of these two clusters (Birmingham and Montgomery), and despite that it is only barely a majority (56% Black).
If these two tendrils were removed, it looks like there would still be just one Black majority district (CD-6) with CD-7 and CD-2 both having somewhat big minorities of Black voters.
Seems like you would need to cut very carefully to achieve two Black majority districts, which very much sounds like gerrymandering to me. However, this is just based on that one map, so I may very well be mistaken.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, since I’ve only started informing myself on this topic starting with this article:
It seems to me, that the basis of the argument that you need a Black majority in order to fully assert your right to vote is the assertion that voters who are Black cannot be represented by officials non-Black people vote for. It seems to assume a strict racial divide in who people vote for, with White people having their White representative and Black people needing their Black representative.
This seems like a very foreign concept to me, since politicians are supposed to be able to represent multiple groups in my head, and since political opinions should not map 1-to-1 to race.
On the other hand, I resonate much more with the article’s quote on "voter dilution" by Terri Sewell. If you pack some districts so full that they are majorly Black, you thereby risk reducing them in others until their opinions as a voting block are pretty much irrelevant there. This seems like an argument to work towards having a significant minority of voters in several districts instead of concentrating them in one or two districts.