Legal expert blames the Supreme Court as redistricting battle erupts between Texas and the DOJ

[turbinetree]

By Bob Brigham
Published December 07, 2021

?id=28178907&width=980&height=551

Republicans in the Texas legislature were blasted by leading legal analyst for discriminatory redistricting maps.

Election law expert and University of Texas Law Prof. Steve Vladeck explained the new dynamics one day after the U.S. Department of Justice field a federal lawsuit for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

"The Justice Department sued Texas on Monday, challenging its newly drawn electoral maps at both the state and congressional levels. At its core, the lawsuit claims that Texas’ new maps discriminate against the state’s 'growing minority electorate.' And clearly, they do. The problem with the lawsuit is not its factual premise; it is the significant steps the Supreme Court has taken in the last eight years to make it easier for conservative states to get away with exactly such anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) manipulation," he wrote. "Simply put, the latest front in the battle between the Biden administration and Texas reinforces just how fragile our democracy is becoming — and how directly the Supreme Court is responsible."

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-gop-redistricting-maps-are-a-threat-to-democracy-expert/

You think so.....the shit show started in 2000 with Bush V Gore.....and a lot earlier with Roberts and others......and to top it all off Citizens United.....what the fuck does Citizens United mean, the general population like all "citizens" .....nope.... some federalist society catch phrase.....


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/bush-v-gore-but-worse-barrett-scotus.html

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/supreme-court-john-roberts-voting-rights-brnovich-dark-money-1194487/

[crickets]

1. K&R for visibility.

[gratuitous]

2. Yep, Roberts threw away his umbrella in a rainstorm

"Hey, I'm not getting wet. What do I need an umbrella for?" One of the things that particularly irked Scalia was the suspicious renewals of the Voting Rights Act. Every time it came up for a vote, it was unanimous, or nearly unanimous to reauthorize it for another stretch (5 years, maybe?). That looked really hinky to Antonin, as if elected officials might have to face the wrath of the voters if they failed to ensure their right to ballot access. So Scalia, Roberts, and the rest of their life-tenured cabal decided to invalidate Section 5 because it worked too well.

Section 5 of the VRA was the part that stopped certain states (guess which ones) from unilaterally fucking with voting rights. Those states had to submit their proposed changes to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice before they could go into effect. Not surprisingly, those proposals that disenfranchised voters or took away the power of their vote were ruled to be invalid. The Roberts Court to the rescue! Let's throw that whole review regimen out the window, and let the states just enact any voting legislation they want. If there's a problem, voters can file suit and the courts will figure it out.

Of course, the courts aren't nearly as quick as the Civil Rights Division in getting a final ruling, so any number of elections were held under unconstitutional voting laws, the results of which were left in place. Subsequently, the state legislatures put into office by those unconstitutional laws would come up with a new bit of legislation, tweaked ever so slightly to address the court ruling, that would then have to wend its way up the court hierarchy until the new legislation was ruled unconstitutional. But before that ruling came down, another election had been held.

Finally, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together foresaw, the Roberts Court got tired of taking these cases. So they came up with a new ruling that it was up to the states themselves to figure out if new voting rights legislation was constitutional or not. And the circle was complete. Roberts created a problem where none existed, got tired of adjudicating the cases that their mess created, and turned it back over to the states controlled by legislatures put in place by unconstitutional election laws.