The Supreme Court appears ready to gut a key tool of the Voting Rights Act that's helped root out racial discrimination in voting for more than a half century.
They upheld the voting rights act in a similar case from Alabama 2 years ago, but Kavanaugh (who voted in the majority, along with Roberts and the 3 liberal justices) basically said in his opinion that he’s have voted the other way if they’d opted for the “racism is over” argument, which is what Louisiana is doing now.
Roberts made sure to distinguish this case from the previous one:
Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t say much, but tipped his hand when he sought to distinguish Callais from his own decision upholding the VRA just two years ago. Back then, he said, the court “took existing precedent as a given,” since no party asked for its reversal. Now, however, both the court and Louisiana have put “existing precedent” in the crosshairs, giving the majority a golden opportunity to overturn it.
Nevermind that the state only got on board with overturning precedent after the Supreme Court wanted to rehear the case this term with parameters clearly meant to head in that direction, the court and the state are on the same page now so he’s ready to go for it.
They upheld the voting rights act in a similar case from Alabama 2 years ago, but Kavanaugh (who voted in the majority, along with Roberts and the 3 liberal justices) basically said in his opinion that he’s have voted the other way if they’d opted for the “racism is over” argument, which is what Louisiana is doing now.
Roberts made sure to distinguish this case from the previous one:
Nevermind that the state only got on board with overturning precedent after the Supreme Court wanted to rehear the case this term with parameters clearly meant to head in that direction, the court and the state are on the same page now so he’s ready to go for it.