After listening to oral argument, it is obvious that team Alito is not going to overturn Section 2. The speculative article did not age well.
I listened to the oral arguments as well. I don't think so either, but that isn't really the primary concern here. I do expect the Court to rule for Alabama and further its gutting of the VRA. This should be a more technical case than people have made it out to be, but this current SCOTUS is not one that tends to choose restraint.
The Freedom to Vote Act is more necessary. The Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over House elections and near plenary authority over Senate elections if it chooses to exercise such power. That alone would be a significant step in the right direction. The independent state legislature theory would have no legs if Congress chose to act. Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause specifically mentioned the Elections Clause as a way to do something about gerrymandering. There's also nothing stopping Congress itself from drawing the maps for each and every state.
This will be a horrible precedent. Consider the next R trifecta pass a law to give all congressional map drawing power to itself, and gerrymander the House so that D can never take it back.I wasn't arguing for or against such an idea, just that it would be within the powers of Congress under Article I. However, I am a strong proponent of federally-enforced anti-gerrymandering provisions. Read the text of the
Freedom to Vote Act. The redistricting part starts with Section 5001.
