Supreme Court Breaks Another Election To Make Sure Black Voters Are Disenfranchised

Again, I feel like I'm going crazy here, but the obviously extremely partisan Supreme Court has struck again. I will repeat some of the basics, because it's hard to believe how blatant all of this is. In November, a (Trump-appointed) judge threw out Texas's new congressional maps, noting that the Texas state government had made it quite clear it was done for racial reasons, making it a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The judge wrote a detailed 160-page ruling showing how the Trump administration itself had essentially locked in the Texas legislature's need to draw maps based on race, by threatening them with a civil rights complaint if they didn't.

The Supreme Court, however, blocked that new map in December, saying that because of the upcoming midterm elections (still months away in December), Texas had to use those new maps (which had only been created in August) because (according to Samuel Alito) Texas voters needed certainty." Of course, they could have gone right back to the maps Texas had been using up until August - but somehow that would have shaken things up too much.

Then, a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued its Callais decision, effectively wiping out the remaining bits of the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana immediately declared a state of emergency and sought to throw out the map it had already started using for primary season - to redraw it in a much more racist way. And Samuel the voters need certainty" Alito helped them along by rushing the certification of the Callais decision.

Now, just a few days later, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has also vacated an even more detailed ruling rejecting maps in Alabama for being racist. The conservative majority claims that this is in light of the ruling in Callais:

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in that case is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit with instructions to remand to the District Court for further consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais

Now, that's already odd for the same reason I raised earlier about the Supreme Court (led by Justice Alito) claiming back in December that they couldn't overturn Texas' new map (which has only been announced, and never actually used, months earlier) for the sake of voter certainty." Yet here they are issuing a ruling EIGHT DAYS before the Alabama primary.

What the fuck?

It's bizarre for multiple other reasons as well, including that the Supreme Court already heard a related case regarding the map in Alabama and ruled that it violated the Voting Rights Act (Alito, naturally, dissented). The state went to redraw its map based on that, but the lower court rejected the new maps almost exactly a year ago in an astounding 571-page ruling.

Notably, while that ruling does find that the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act (in multiple ways), it also found that the maps directly violate the Fourteenth Amendment (this discussion is towards the end of that 571-page ruling, so perhaps Alito and the other conservative Justices didn't read that far?). And, as much as the Court believes it can invalidate the Voting Rights Act, it cannot invalidate the Constitution.

So we have a ridiculously thorough 571-page district court ruling - finding that the maps violate not just the VRA but also the Fourteenth Amendment - and the conservative majority just waves it away. Yet the conservatives on the Supreme Court - the same group who said no last-minute map changes for voter certainty" - just ordered that clearly discriminatory, unconstitutional map into use, because of how they changed their interpretation of the Voting Rights Act.

But, as Justice Sotomayor points out in her dissent, that would totally ignore the Fourteenth Amendment part!

At the end of that trial, the District Court concluded with great reluctance and dismay and even greater restraint" that Alabama had not merely spurned the opportunity to remedy past discrimination, but in fact had intentionally violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Given that, the ruling in Callais could only possibly impact the VRA part of the lower court decision. Not the Fourteenth Amendment bit. But the majority on the Supreme Court just ignores that.

Nothing in the District Court's Fourteenth Amendment analysis is affected by this Court's opinion in Callais. Most obviously, Callais changed the legal standard for vote-dilution claims under 2. See 608 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19) ([W]e must understand exactly what 2 of the Voting Rights Act demands"). It said not a word about the standard for Fourteenth Amendment intentional-discrimination claims like the one that the District Court decided on remand in round two.

Even worse, Sotomayor points out that in Callais itself, the majority had claimed that the earlier 2022 ruling regarding the Alabama maps (where they said it violated the VRA) remains good law. But this new ruling clearly contradicts that claim.

Callais also insisted that this Court's prior decision in Allen remains good law. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 36) ([W]e have not overruled Allen"). These cases are, of course, Allen. So if Allen is good law anywhere, then it must be good law here. This Court's finding of racially discriminatory vote dilution is an inextricable, permanent feature of this case, and Alabama's willful decision to respond by entrenching rather than remedying that dilution is, as the District Court correctly recognized, evidence of discriminatory intent

So, was Alito lying a week and a half ago when he said that Allen was still good law? Or did he just change his mind now, because he's decided that he needs to proactively strip Black voters of their franchise for the sake of helping Republicans get a few more seats in the House?

And John Roberts wonders why people claim the Supreme Court is partisan."

Sotomayor also points out the ridiculousness of doing this a week before the election:

Even if Callais had something to say about the evidence necessary to establish discriminatory intent, it still would not be appropriate to vacate the decision below at this time. That is because Alabama's congressional primary election is next week, and vacating the District Court's injunction will immediately replace the current map with Alabama's 2023 Redistricting Plan until the District Court acts, even though voting has already begun. Vacatur is an equitable remedy, and the Court should not lightly wield it to unleash chaos and to confuse voters.

Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed that she didn't point to Alito's voters need certainty" claim for refusing to block Texas' new maps back in December.

There is no good-faith reading of these events. Alito said Allen was still good law - then acted as if it wasn't, twelve days later and eight days before an election. He said voters need certainty" - then vacated a 571-page ruling finding unconstitutional discrimination with a week to go before Alabama's primary. And the majority just waved away the Fourteenth Amendment finding entirely, as if they simply didn't notice it was there.

John Roberts keeps insisting the Court isn't partisan. At some point, the gap between that claim and what the Court actually does becomes its own kind of answer.