👀
In the April 2026 Supreme Court decision Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion limiting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that "vast social change" and increased Black voter turnout mean that decades-old frameworks forcing states to create majority-minority districts are no longer necessary.
The Core of Justice Alito's Argument
Writing for the 6–3 conservative majority, Justice Alito stated that historic racial inequities and voter suppression have substantially abated nationwide. He cited the following justifications:
*Turnout Parity: Alito pointed out that Black voter turnout had met or exceeded white voter turnout in "two of the five most recent presidential elections," both nationally and within Louisiana.
*Social Progress: He argued that "vast social change," particularly in the South, has led to significant increases in minority voter registration and office-
*Strict Colorblind Standard: Alito emphasized that the U.S. Constitution "almost never permits" the government to discriminate based on race. He stated that lower courts were misapplying Section 2 by forcing states to engage in race-based district drawing, which violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Resulting Legal Shifts
The Callais ruling fundamentally alters how the Voting Rights Act is applied to redistricting:
1. Requires Proof of Intent: To successfully challenge a map for vote dilution, plaintiffs must now prove intentional racial discrimination. Present-day racial disparities or the ongoing effects of historic discrimination are given "much less weight".
2. Protects Partisan Gerrymandering: If a state can argue that its map lines were drawn to achieve partisan political goals rather than racial ones, the map is protected under the court's prior Rucho v. Common Cause precedent, making it extremely difficult to challenge.
Criticisms and Data Controversy
Civil rights advocates and the court's dissenting justices strongly pushed back against Alito's reasoning:
"Deceptive Data Claims: A review published by The Guardian and highlighted by the Brennan Center for Justice revealed that the turnout data Alito relied upon was deeply flawed. The data analysis counted the total
population over 18 rather than eligible voters, including ineligible individuals in the denominator.
*Cherry-Picked Elections: Critics noted that the two elections Alito referenced where Black turnout reached parity were 2008 and 2012—the specific years Barack Obama was on the ballot. In the three presidential elections since, the racial turnout gap has widened significantly.
*Dissenting Opinion: Justice Elena Kagan issued a sharp dissent, writing that the majority had "brought low" the Voting Rights Act to make the world safe for systemic minority vote dilution and partisan gerrymanderers.
Note that the standard method of measuring turnout would be to count citizen voting age or even registered voters in the denominator. Both avoid including ineligible voters. Both show black.voter turnout declining in comparison with white voter turnout.
I would presume all.three numbers are derived from the most recent census?.
.
The census counts all individuals for Congressional seat apportionment.
The census count doesn't eliminate non-citizens.
The census count doesn't count voter registrations.
The census count doesn't count voting age recipients.
The case before SCOTUS was a result of the 2020 U.S. census so the DOJ used census data in their brief.
Did you read Alito's opinion ?
RecentWTF is wrong with the lef... by Custard
wtf is wrong with the rig... by illiniray
TOTTM 2026 by ThePAMan
Total Members: 142