SCOTUS Ruling On Alabama Voting Map Opens Dangerous Door

[discobot]

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It first appeared at The Conversation.

---

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1404856

[coimmigrant]

the Court’s majority would need to employ a novel reading of the Voting Rights Act to make the case appear debatable.

The Court has already employed a novel reading of the VRA in two recent decisions. This case will be the final chapter in the death of the VRA.

I now turn to @sniffit for a more detailed analysis.

[sniffit]

@coimmigrant

I now turn to @sniffit for a more detailed analysis.

And here it is: them bitches be white supremacist Christian dominionist neofascists.

[1gg]

Didn’t Chief Justice Roberts say we didn’t need the Civil Rights Act anymore, don’t tell me he was wrong? s/

[progress]

Desantis is on board already, almost like he and his administration knew what was coming.

But that can’t be. Surely those sober arbiters on the Supreme Court would never lean into political strategy. Banish the thought.

Gov. Ron DeSantis scrambles Florida’s redistricting debate, with an eye to...

[sparrowhawk]

The justices’ decision rests on the Purcell principle – a rule the Supreme Court created in 2006 when vacating a Court of Appeals decision to block Arizona’s voter ID law a month before the upcoming general election.

In their ruling in the case Purcell v. Gonzalez, justices said federal courts should not interfere with state election processes close to a general election because doing so would confuse voters and burden election officials.

The latest ruling by the Supreme Court in Merrill appears to expand the scope of the Purcell rule significantly.

The Merrill ruling does not appear to track Purcell. The district court’s injunction in Merrill was the result of a full review of Alabama’s congressional redistricting plan. The district court heard seven days of testimony and read a substantial volume of briefings before reaching its decision.

At the conclusion of the case – handled at warp speed for a federal court – the district court wrote an opinion of more than 200 pages explaining in detail the law and facts underlying its decision.

Moreover, the injunction against Alabama’s redistricting plan was issued on Jan. 24, 2022 – more than nine months before voting in Alabama’s general election ends on Nov. 8, 2022.

The “conservative” majority on the Court don’t even seem to care enough to give us a plausible lie. The district court didn’t just make things up willy nilly and they didn’t do it with no time to spare before the election, so it’s absurd to claim the court was interfering in election law too close to an election. The Shadow Docketeers just made things up and didn’t even bother to put even the thinnest veneer of plausibility over it.

[steviedee111]

This SCOTUS would reinstitute the jelly bean test on a 5-4 decision if only a state would bring them a suit.

[esva]

Props for stating the matter concisely. Or, in more technical terms, that’s it in a nutsehll.

[dangoodbar]

Not all are “white supremacist Christian”, at least one is an Uncle Thomas.

[sniffit]

@dangoodbar

Not all are “white supremacist Christian”, at least one is an Uncle Thomas.

Motherfucker waddles and quacks. I’m sticking with my assessment of “duck”.

[lastroth]

@1gg

Didn’t Chief Justice Roberts say we didn’t need the Civil Rights Act anymore, don’t tell me he was wrong? s/

He either jumped the gun,… or he jumped the gun.

[jtx]

Ah come on! Why are you holding back?

[thunderclapnewman]

I half expect the Seditionist Six to reaffirm Plessy v. Ferguson as settled law.

[emiliano4]

“I’d like for 'em all to be re-enslaved. 'cept me”. C.T.

[drriddle]

There are going to be other cases coming through the system, it will be very interesting if the Republicans on the Supreme Court decide that, say, New York’s gerrymandered districts have to be changed while allowing states run by Republicans to use their maps in 2022. It’s not clear that they are willing to be that obvious about things, but the logic of their decision means that any cases that get to them should use the maps that are in place until they can hear the case and rule, and if they rule on Democratic maps before the election while putting off Republican ones, that’s a clear indication they have decided not to hide their intentions anymore.

This is something to keep an eye on…most of the lawsuits are about Republican maps but there are lawsuits about the Democratic ones too, so we’ll have more opportunities to see how willing they are to break the system so that Republican dominance can be forced onto us.

[eldonlazar]

Time to expand the court to 13, if not 15, justices and add term limits retroactively.
(Thomas, yer outta here!)

[eldonlazar]

@dangoodbar

at least one is an Uncle Thomas.

So, in effect, white.

[dedwords]

To this point, SCROTUS does not appear to have overridden state supreme courts ruling that the gerrymandering is prohibited under their state’s constitution, as happend in North Carolina and Ohio (at least). We’ll see how far Sam the Sham thinks the Supremes should go to tilt the election further – such as overriding state supreme court rulings under the state constitutions to greenlight unfettered gerrymandering.

[birdford]

Is it my imagination, or are things getting more ugly every day despite the best efforts of good people everywhere? I truly fear for my grandchildren.

[edgarant]

@1gg

Didn’t Chief Justice Roberts say we didn’t need the Civil Rights Act anymore, don’t tell me he was wrong? s/

Why the s/? Roberts has been out to kill the Voting Rights Act and a civil Rights Act since he was a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. So, too, let’s not forget Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett were RNC/Bush lawyers in Bush v Gore.