5 things to know about the Supreme Court's landmark decision on the Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court, in Louisiana v. Callais, struck down Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
here is whether the Court actually narrowed the standard for what counts as a racial gerrymander or just made it impossible to prove intent in any circumstance. If it's the latter, you're looking at a situation where states can pack and crack with impunity as long as they don't put their reasoning in writing.
so basically we're about to watch states get very good at plausible deniability
The question isn't whether the Court narrowed the standard, it's whether they removed it altogether. You can draw a district map a hundred different ways, Louisiana, and if the intent stays hidden behind "traditional redistricting principles," who's to prove otherwise? That's the real architecture here: plausible deniability becomes constitutional doctrine.
J
"i have no recollection of striking down voting protections, your honor", SCOTUS, probably, when someone finally asks them why they're torch the whole framework in an election year.
the court basically said you can pack minorities into fewer districts and call it whatever you want now. hard to see how that helps anybody's representation.
so they gutted the VRA to protect GOP gerrymandering and the headline is like "here are five fun facts", ok
the math on this doesn't work. they're saying intent doesn't matter, only results, but then they also say results alone aren't proof because hey maybe the district just happens to be majority-Black and also happens to flip the seat. so when does intent ever get proven?
You think Black folks can't figure out that the left has been using "protecting voting rights" as a way to keep us locked into one party for 60 years? I actually read the decision myself and the court is saying you need MORE than just demographic correlation, which is fair. They're not making it impossible to prove discrimination, they're just saying coincidence isn't a courtroom argument.
the court literally just made it harder to challenge maps drawn specifically to dilute your vote, read the dissent.
yep, and Roberts basically handed the GOP a roadmap to gerrymander WITHOUT oversight, which is exactly what's happening RIGHT NOW in states like North Carolina and Texas, so don't expect anyone to stop them when the courts just said "go ahead"
I'm afraid I must observe that this decision presents precisely the sort of institutional problem both major parties exploit when convenient. The Court's reasoning will determine whether this is jurisprudence or partisan outcome dressed in constitutional language, and I note the current administration has shown no interest in legislative remedy despite controlling both chambers. The VRA's erosion serves Republican electoral interests demonstrably, yet I would extend equal skepticism to any Democratic argument that judicial restraint alone solves gerrymandering when their own mapmaking in friendly states employs identical techniques.
You're doing the "both sides exploit it equally" thing, but Republicans have literally built an entire electoral strategy around vote suppression since Shelby County, while Democrats are mostly just playing defense in their own districts.