Why Supreme Court voting rights decision shocked legal, political worlds

Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch. Although they sided with challengers over one of the legislative districts, the justices said the lower court did not give enough credit to the legislature.

“When all the relevant evidence in the record is taken into account, it is plainly insufficient to prove that the 2013 Legislature acted in bad faith and engaged in intentional discrimination,” Alito wrote. Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, would have gone further, because of his view that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to redistricting.Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. Sotomayor wrote that the decision “does great damage to the right of equal opportunity.”

“After years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas — despite constituting a majority of the population within the state — will continue to be underrepresented in the political process,” she wrote.Whether the Constitution bars partisan gerrymandering, in which politicians draw electoral districts to preserve or expand their party’s power.

Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, . “We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Roberts wrote. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”“imperil our system of government.

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Republicans set to lose multiple seats due to Supreme Court rulingNAACP president Derrick Johnson welcomed the Supreme Court's decision as a 'triumph for our democracy.'
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »

Why the Supreme Court Declined an Opportunity to Diminish the Voting Rights ActIn a new Q. & A., IChotiner speaks with ruthgreenwood about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Allen v. Milligan, which determined that Alabama’s redistricting had illegally diluted the power of Black voters.
Source: NewYorker - 🏆 90. / 67 Read more »

Supreme Court endorses race-based districtingChief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in a 2006 political redistricting case that “it is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” In a landmark redistricting decision on June 8, Roberts engaged in exactly this sordid business.
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »

US Supreme Court Kicks American Wetlands When They're DownIt appears the Court's right-wing majority wants to open the floodgates to polluters even as we continue to learn more about just how connected wetlands are to bigger bodies of water and also to our entire way of life​.
Source: commondreams - 🏆 530. / 51 Read more »

Supreme Court Voting Rights Decision an Important, If Qualified, WinWhile Allen v. Milligan should be celebrated as a victory for fair representation, it cannot be an excuse for congressional inaction.
Source: commondreams - 🏆 530. / 51 Read more »

The Supreme Court’s voting rights decision was a missed opportunityThe Supreme Court handed down its decision in Allen v. Milligan on Thursday. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion found that Alabama’s latest congressional redistricting plan likely violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It did so because the map created only one majority black district…
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »