Alabama’s defiance in the voting case has been rejected by the Supreme Court

The Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court’s Decision to Add a Second Majority Black District to the Insights of the State Legislature

The majority decision of the Supreme Court upheld a unanimous decision by the three judges of the lower court and that the court had to create a second majority Black congressional district. But when he case was returned to the state legislature with orders to create a second majority Black district, the GOP lawmakers didn’t do that. Instead they upped the number of Black voters from 30% to 40% in one of the districts.

The state, however, appealed to the Supreme Court a second time in an effort to postpone the creation of a new map. The state argued that it should be allowed time for a new legal line of attack.

On Tuesday, however, the justices refused to delay the lower court’s drawing of a new map with two majority, or near-majority, Black districts. The court said the application for stay presented to Justice Thomas was denied.

The Voting Rights Act is still needed, and the Supreme Court’s action served as a reminder that it’s still important, even though it’s no longer necessary.

The New Mexico District Attorney General’s Brief Report on a GOP-Induced Understanding of the State’s 2nd Congressional District

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A three day trial will begin in New Mexico on Wednesday. Unlike in certain other parts of the country with active fights over redistricting, it’s the state’s Democratic lawmakers who are accused of crafting illegal district boundaries.

New Mexico Democratic Rep. Gabe Vasquez eked out a win over incumbent Yvette Herrell last year in the state’s 2nd Congressional District. The trial challenging the map used in that race comes ahead of a likely rematch between the two in the 2024 election.

New Mexico’s 2nd District used to cover the entire southern part of the state, including the oil-rich Permian Basin. It was redrawn to exclude part of the state’s eastern border with Texas — a conservative-leaning area — and add a heavily Hispanic and Democratic part of Albuquerque, the state’s largest city.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Daniel Gallegos argued in that hearing that the Democratic-controlled Legislature’s actions amounted to a “constitutional harm” to GOP voters by violating the state’s Equal Protection Clause.

Attorney for Democratic leadership Sara Sanchez argued the plaintiffs were pushing back on a district that is simply harder for Republicans to win than it used to be.

The justices have also ordered the lower court to use a three-part test in assessing the GOP’s gerrymandering claims. Elena’s opinion was the first to lay out the test. It asks whether lawmakers intentionally tried to dilute the votes of their opponents, whether they succeeded and whether they have any nonpartisan justifications for where they drew the lines.

The evidence the court will use to determine lawmakers’ intent has already been a point of argument. According to court documents, the plaintiffs subpoenaed a number of state legislators for depositions. The Democratic defendants obtained a protective order because they believed the state constitution gave lawmakers immunity from testifying about the legislative process.

“There must be limited ways in which a legislator’s intent can be admitted to help in deciding cases before the courts,” he wrote in a letter to both parties.

The judge said lawmakers can’t be called to testify about their deliberations on the map. However, any statements made to individuals not directly involved in the legislative process before the map was enacted will be allowed. This could include statements made to the public or the congressional delegation. The map itself and its effect will be the primary means by which the court can gauge Democratic lawmakers’ intent behind where they drew the lines.