SCOTUS rules for Louisiana Republicans, does NOT strike down section 2 VRA -link
| saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | cracking clear degenerate | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | aromatic balding station water buffalo | 04/29/26 | | rusted bespoke locale | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | rusted bespoke locale | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | aromatic balding station water buffalo | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | Onyx roommate | 04/29/26 | | Onyx roommate | 04/29/26 | | Onyx roommate | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/29/26 | | saffron quadroon | 04/30/26 | | Arrogant provocative nursing home factory reset button | 04/30/26 | | saffron quadroon | 05/01/26 | | saffron quadroon | 05/01/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 29th, 2026 10:24 AM Author: saffron quadroon
Key SCOTUS language:
Properly understood, §2 thus does not intrude on States’
prerogative to draw districts based on nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage. In short, §2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race. Not only does this interpretation follow from the plain text of §2, but it is consistent with the limited authority that the Fifteenth Amendment confers. Pp. 22–26.
(b) This interpretation does not require abandonment of the frame-work for evaluating §2 claims that the Court established in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30. The Court need only update the framework so it aligns with the statutory text and reflects important developments since the Court decided Gingles 40 years ago.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861584&forum_id=2).#49850883) |
 |
Date: April 29th, 2026 10:29 AM Author: aromatic balding station water buffalo
it's JOEVER
source: KAGAN "[t]oday's decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter."
Thomas and Gorsuch concurrence say section 2 has nothing to do with redistricting
Alito probably had to keep opinion narrow to keep Robers/Kav/Barrett, but I'm guessing latter two and maybe all 3 are not going to DRAW A LINE at this point
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861584&forum_id=2).#49850910) |
Date: April 29th, 2026 10:40 AM Author: saffron quadroon
Good political analysis:
https://x.com/JosephSzymanski/status/2049496857055748199
I suspect the Dem justices would have slow-walked the opinion longer if they had thought it would gut the Dems' chances in 2026.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861584&forum_id=2).#49850933) |
Date: April 29th, 2026 5:10 PM Author: saffron quadroon
Alabama says no redistricting now:
https://x.com/alexangle_/status/2049592653868585127
A few states have pending court orders - they'd presumably have to get those overturned before they could act.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861584&forum_id=2).#49852151) |
Date: May 1st, 2026 2:59 PM Author: saffron quadroon
Alabama may re-district after all:
https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/2050283729310904704
Depends on court rulings, though. They have a case before SCOTUS and are seeking an expedited ruling. You'd think the three liberal justices would slow walk it if they can.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861584&forum_id=2).#49857230) |
|
|