To put it another way, all factors Congress said should be considered, in considering cases, are constitutionally impermissible to consider. These are just so many incitements to violate the 14A. www.justice.gov/crt/section-...
Replies
I guess the exception would be if a state announced new maps with 'we did a proud racism.' But no more inferences to that conclusion are permissible.
aug 28, 2025, 10:33 pm • 0 0 • view
This supreme court is too textualist for the announcement of legislative intent to matter
aug 28, 2025, 10:39 pm • 1 0 • view
Here you go. Maybe I'm missing something. www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/u...
aug 28, 2025, 10:33 pm • 0 0 • view
The Democracy Docket extraction of the argument is clearer than just the bits I just quoted actually. Any attempts to mandate maps to hit a 'good' target are going to amount to impermissible 'affirmative action' for elections, in effect. You can't ever say what 'good' would be in such cases.
aug 28, 2025, 10:50 pm • 1 0 • view
So all that's left is this: open confession by the state that racism was the reason for the map would suffice to make the map impermissible under VRA §2. But, then again, you wouldn't even need the VRA for that. Just the 15th and the 14th would do. So VRA §2 has no possible use.
aug 28, 2025, 10:50 pm • 2 0 • view