Supreme court ruling on Wisconsin maps highlights its hostility to voting rights

It's no secret the court has been hostile to voting rights recently - but what has changed is the velocity' that it is acting with

Hello, and Happy Thursday,

In the fall of 2017, I was sitting in the cramped press area at the supreme court as a lawyer named Paul Smith urged the justices to strike down the districts for the Wisconsin state assembly. They were so distorted in favor of Republicans, he argued, that they violated the US constitution. As Smith started to lay out his case, Chief Justice John Roberts cut in and laid out what he feared would happen if the supreme court were to step in and start policing electoral maps based on partisanship.

Anyone who isn't in jail or prison for a felony can vote, a three-judge panel in North Carolina ruled on Monday. The decision could affect up to 56,000 people in the state, though election officials aren't letting people with felonies register just yet.

Arizona Republicans passed a law requiring new voters to prove their citizenship to vote in a presidential election, which is probably illegal.

Ohio voting rights groups are fuming after Republicans did a bait-and-switch to try again and get the state supreme court to approve gerrymandered maps.

A committee of Georgia lawmakers stopped a proposal, for now, that would have expanded the Georgia bureau of investigation's ability to investigate voter fraud, among other measures.