a standard that says "you need to have smoking gun evidence to prove racial discrimination in voting" is a standard that would let much of the jim crow voting architecture undisturbed electionlawblog.org?p=143227
So, why should there be a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith, despite the last 150 years of legislatures never acting in good faith in this area? Alito gives three reasons (he calls them three "additional" reasons, but what he regards as the primary reason is not clear -
Reminds me of when Roberts, while approving of Trump's travel ban, for PR reasons said Korematsu was wrongly decided and motivated by racial prejudice, just utterly ignoring the actual legal reasoning, because he knew it was BS, in order to justify and strengthen his own BS legal reasoning.
They use the same bar for “quid-pro-quo” corruption.
The perpetrators have to proclaim their attempt to “rob a bank”, simple stealing the money isn’t enough.
The only way to counteract the extreme gerrymanders of WI, NC, and the like is for democratic states to enact their own extreme gerrymanders. When states that could have 90% D's only send 60% D's because their boundaries were drawn by non-partisan commissions there is no reason for R's to change.
LEGISLATURE: only people who like Jason Aldean, have straight hair, and can’t dance are allowed to vote
SUPREME COURT: no racial barriers, sounds fine
ME: what?! that sounds *super* racist
SC: nonsense, black people are free to straighten their hair and dance poorly to Jason Aldean if they choose
Also likely they're soon going to rule that legislatures can't have redistricting authority taken away from them without their consent, overturning Arizona Leg v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. We're going to see Wisconsin everywhere if the Supremes have their way.
"Anyone who figured out the number of jellybeans in that jar could vote, regardless of their race, I don't know what sort of woke nonsense you're trying to pull."