I had not figured in my computations that Nichi would be back. Interesting
The controversy is not that data were proven to be fabricated, but that Justice Samuel Alito relied on a voter-turnout statistic that many election experts say was calculated using a misleading methodology.
In the 2026 case Louisiana v. Callais, Alito wrote that Black voters had turned out at rates equal to or higher than white voters in two of the five most recent presidential elections, both nationally and in Louisiana. He cited a Department of Justice brief that calculated turnout using the total voting-age population (everyone 18 and older) as the denominator.
Critics argue that this measure is misleading because it includes people who are not eligible to vote, such as non-citizens and some people disenfranchised because of felony convictions. Election researchers generally prefer using the citizen voting-age population (CVAP) or the eligible-voter population when calculating turnout.
According to those critics, when the standard eligible-voter measures are used:
Black turnout in Louisiana exceeded white turnout only once (2012), not in two of the last five presidential elections.
Nationally, Black turnout has generally lagged white turnout in the most recent presidential elections rather than exceeding it.
So the disputed data point was the claim about Black voter turnout relative to white voter turnout. The argument from critics is that the underlying numbers were generated using an atypical denominator that made Black turnout appear higher than it would under the methodology commonly used by election scholars.
Supporters of the opinion might respond that the Court relied on data submitted in a government brief and that disagreements over statistical methodology do not necessarily mean the data were intentionally falsified. The dispute is therefore primarily about methodology and interpretation rather than a finding by a court or official body that numbers were fabricated.