This article is extremely important and I want to share broadly, but I'm a bit confused on this point: would you please clarify for me? "Ron claimed the district was a racial gerrymander. This is an objectively false claim that has no current legal basis." As a 'layperson,' it appears to me that statement conflicts with this one, "What is clear is the Duval-only 5th would clearly be in line with current case law" Is the Duval-only 5h actually inline with case law? Maybe a different question, but I would have thought case law, both fed and state, would protect the existing dst 5 boundary.
This article is extremely important and I want to share broadly, but I'm a bit confused on this point: would you please clarify for me? "Ron claimed the district was a racial gerrymander. This is an objectively false claim that has no current legal basis." As a 'layperson,' it appears to me that statement conflicts with this one, "What is clear is the Duval-only 5th would clearly be in line with current case law" Is the Duval-only 5h actually inline with case law? Maybe a different question, but I would have thought case law, both fed and state, would protect the existing dst 5 boundary.