Reposted by humboldt insomniac
crazy that under the precedent set by callais, a lily-white congressional delegation formed by "partisan" gerrymandering in a plurality black state passes constitutional muster, while any majority-minority district is constitutionally suspect
![The majority’s order grapples with virtually none of this.
Indeed, it does not even acknowledge that the District
Court’s discriminatory-intent finding is reviewed for clear
error. Much of its reasoning rests on its assertion that, even
as to the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim, “the Dis-
trict Court’s analysis departed from Callais.” Ante, at 3.
That is wrong twice over. First, Callais “said not a word
about the standard for Fourteenth Amendment intentional-
discrimination claims.” Caster, 608 U. S., at ___
(SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 4). Instead, Callais
was focused on changing the Court’s law on “exactly what
§2 of the Voting Rights Act demands,” not what the Consti-
tution demands. 608 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19). Second,
Callais said that its newly fashioned test for §2 disparate-
impact claims is not an intent-based test. It acknowledged
that §2 “does not demand a finding of intentional discrimi-
nation.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 23). It also denied JUSTICE
KAGAN’s charge that the majority’s new test was an intent
test in all but name. Id., at ____ (slip op., at 35). It is hard
to see how the District Court’s finding of discriminatory in-
tent under the Fourteenth Amendment could have de-
parted from an opinion that purported to say nothing about
how to find discriminatory intent under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Court’s apparently oblivious insistence
to the contrary today cannot be squared with what Callais
said on its face just over one month ago. See id., at ___, n.
5 (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 25, n. 5) (“[T]he major-
ity closes its opinion by suggesting it is not requiring a vote-
dilution plaintiff to present evidence of ‘discriminatory in-
tent.’ Which, if true, would be welcome news” (citation
omitted](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreihd4do2eirxszmxkxmtifhkxrkoyyqj6s2rbmioafbeusioqgwme4)
![Jeff Elrod, the Director of Elections for Alabama's Secretary of State, testified
at the preliminary injunction hearing on May 22, 2026, that voter reassignments for
the 2023 Plan in Alabama's voter registration database could not begin until May 27
and must be completed by tomorrow, June 2. App. 123, 136-37, 139, 167, 179. In fact, June 2 itself appears to be too late: Mr. Elrod testified, "The vendor has
communicated to us that once the absentee process begins and absentee ballot is issued [sic], that is when the records are locked. The first day for absentee voting for the June 16th runoff is June the 2nd." App. 139. If absentee ballots are issued the
morning of June 2, then all changes must be completed by today, June 1. And state and county administrative offices are closed today, June 1, to celebrate the birthday
of Jefferson Davis. 1 This leaves a few hours on an Alabama holiday to complete voter
reassignment for the 2023 Plan.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreig3w26fc7arf3orn73dfvel7mkdoo4oyuufvbnyctxooghgjizfze)
