Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Rick Hasen on SCOTUS' Alabama opinion: The majority's opinion accompanying the ruling is astounding
Rick Hasen
@rickhasen.bsky.social
The majority’s opinion accompanying the ruling is astounding, and in fact is potentially just as significant as Callais despite its brevity and tentative nature given that it is a shadow docket ruling.
In today’s order, the Supreme Court makes the already difficult path of proving discriminatory intent even harder.
Building upon J Alito’s opinion in Abbott v. Perez, there’s now practically an unrebuttable presumption that a legislature is acting in good faith and therefore is not acting in a racially discriminatory way so long as the state can assert some pretextual nonracial reason for enacting its plan.
Even if plaintiffs get past this new discriminatory intent barrier, the Court has now imported the Callais discriminatory effects test into a constitutional vote dilution analysis.
So in these cases, plaintiffs will need to meet an impossible standard to prove effect, just as in a post-Callais Section 2 case, a standard which simply ignores the fact that when (white) Republicans discriminate against Democrats in the south, they are discriminating against Black voters.
Finally, the opinion turns the equities on its head in many ways. The Court now says that a federal court cannot remedy a voting violation at the last minute under the so-called Purcell Principle, but states should go to town with new, unconstitutional plans:
"While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.”
This is a license for putting last minute unconstitutional plans in place and sow chaos for election administrators and voters.
There's more in my full post, which concludes:
More and more, this Court shows itself to be little more than a partisan tool engaged in results-oriented jurisprudence, despite protestations to the contrary.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=156541
@rickhasen.bsky.social
The majority’s opinion accompanying the ruling is astounding, and in fact is potentially just as significant as Callais despite its brevity and tentative nature given that it is a shadow docket ruling.
In today’s order, the Supreme Court makes the already difficult path of proving discriminatory intent even harder.
Building upon J Alito’s opinion in Abbott v. Perez, there’s now practically an unrebuttable presumption that a legislature is acting in good faith and therefore is not acting in a racially discriminatory way so long as the state can assert some pretextual nonracial reason for enacting its plan.
Even if plaintiffs get past this new discriminatory intent barrier, the Court has now imported the Callais discriminatory effects test into a constitutional vote dilution analysis.
So in these cases, plaintiffs will need to meet an impossible standard to prove effect, just as in a post-Callais Section 2 case, a standard which simply ignores the fact that when (white) Republicans discriminate against Democrats in the south, they are discriminating against Black voters.
Finally, the opinion turns the equities on its head in many ways. The Court now says that a federal court cannot remedy a voting violation at the last minute under the so-called Purcell Principle, but states should go to town with new, unconstitutional plans:
"While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.”
This is a license for putting last minute unconstitutional plans in place and sow chaos for election administrators and voters.
There's more in my full post, which concludes:
More and more, this Court shows itself to be little more than a partisan tool engaged in results-oriented jurisprudence, despite protestations to the contrary.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=156541
There's more in my full post, which concludes:
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen.bsky.social) 2026-06-03T02:33:45.216Z
More and more, this Court shows itself to be little more than a partisan tool engaged in results-oriented jurisprudence, despite protestations to the contrary.
electionlawblog.org?p=156541
Completely agree with @rickhasen.bsky.social. After tonight’s decision, it isn’t just impossible to win a Voting Rights Act claim—it’s also impossible to win a *constitutional* claim against egregiously racist gerrymandering. The supermajority massively expanded Callais. electionlawblog.org?p=156541
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-06-03T02:33:15.852Z
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
