After Brnovich v. DNC: Will SCOTUS eventually declare Section 2 unconstitutional?

[I’m not Stu]

If Alito writes it, I think you know what that might mean. &$*@#%@$&*%#!

[they don't love you like i love you]

1-This is just a random Reason writer's speculation.
2-This case isn't very broad, it just involves Arizona's not accepting of provisional ballots cast at the wrong precinct and law banning ballot harvesting. Upholding those two laws wouldn't have much impact on Arizona elections as they're already in place and most states have such laws already. It makes sense the DNC would try to get these laws struck down but the almost certainly in vain attempt won't make voting laws any worse now than in 2020.

[SnowLabrador]

Please retire, Stephen Breyer, RBG's mistake was dire.

[I’m not Stu]

Please retire, Stephen Breyer, RBG's mistake was dire.

You know what will happen if he dies during a GOP Senate and a GOP president replaces him to make it 7-2.

[brucejoel99]

ERM's fear-mongering again, I think y'all know what that might mean. &$*@#%@$&*%#!

[Donerail]

Not a lot of justices have written from that sitting (in part because there were very few cases argued) — Roberts doesn't have it because he took Arthrex, but it could be Breyer, Kagan, Alito, Thomas or Kavanaugh. I think Kagan may have it.

[I’m not Stu]

It probably isn’t Gorsuch, Barrett, or Kagan.

[Donerail]

It probably isn’t Gorsuch, Barrett, or Kagan.

It probably isn't Gorsuch or Barrett because Gorsuch wrote in Garland v. Dai and Barrett wrote in Florida v. Georgia. I don't see why you would rule out Kagan.

[I’m not Stu]

I think Kagan has the opinion in Lange v. California. If she doesn’t, it’s probably Kavanaugh.

[I’m not Stu]

I think Kagan has the opinion in Lange v. California. If she doesn’t, it’s probably Kavanaugh.

I was correct! Kagan has Lange v. California. Only Thomas, Kavanaugh, Breyer, and Alito don't have any from that sitting. Thomas already has many opinions, so I don't think he has Brnovich v. DNC. If Alito has it, RIP Terri Sewell, she's DOA and say hello to safe R AL-07.

[SteveRogers]

I think Kagan has the opinion in Lange v. California. If she doesn’t, it’s probably Kavanaugh.

I was correct! Kagan has Lange v. California. Only Thomas, Kavanaugh, Breyer, and Alito don't have any from that sitting. Thomas already has many opinions, so I don't think he has Brnovich v. DNC. If Alito has it, RIP Terri Sewell, she's DOA and say hello to safe R AL-07.

Um, can you explain what you think this case is about?

[I’m not Stu]

I think Kagan has the opinion in Lange v. California. If she doesn’t, it’s probably Kavanaugh.

I was correct! Kagan has Lange v. California. Only Thomas, Kavanaugh, Breyer, and Alito don't have any from that sitting. Thomas already has many opinions, so I don't think he has Brnovich v. DNC. If Alito has it, RIP Terri Sewell, she's DOA and say hello to safe R AL-07.

Um, can you explain what you think this case is about?

It’s about the scope of VRA’s results test.

[SteveRogers]

I think Kagan has the opinion in Lange v. California. If she doesn’t, it’s probably Kavanaugh.

I was correct! Kagan has Lange v. California. Only Thomas, Kavanaugh, Breyer, and Alito don't have any from that sitting. Thomas already has many opinions, so I don't think he has Brnovich v. DNC. If Alito has it, RIP Terri Sewell, she's DOA and say hello to safe R AL-07.

Um, can you explain what you think this case is about?

It’s about the scope of VRA’s results test.

So what is it that you think happens if Alito has the opinion, specifically?

[I’m not Stu]

I think Kagan has the opinion in Lange v. California. If she doesn’t, it’s probably Kavanaugh.

I was correct! Kagan has Lange v. California. Only Thomas, Kavanaugh, Breyer, and Alito don't have any from that sitting. Thomas already has many opinions, so I don't think he has Brnovich v. DNC. If Alito has it, RIP Terri Sewell, she's DOA and say hello to safe R AL-07.

Um, can you explain what you think this case is about?

It’s about the scope of VRA’s results test.

So what is it that you think happens if Alito has the opinion, specifically?

The results test is completely struck down.

[Torie]

1-This is just a random Reason writer's speculation.
2-This case isn't very broad, it just involves Arizona's not accepting of provisional ballots cast at the wrong precinct and law banning ballot harvesting. Upholding those two laws wouldn't have much impact on Arizona elections as they're already in place and most states have such laws already. It makes sense the DNC would try to get these laws struck down but the almost certainly in vain attempt won't make voting laws any worse now than in 2020.

Why use such simple algorithms BTRD, when far more complex ones are just waiting out there to be savored?

"Overall, we might do some back-of-the-envelope odds-making as follows: A 5% chance Alito isn’t the author; a 20% chance there is a badly fractured opinion, of which Alito is the technical author; a 25% chance of Alito writing a 6-3 conservative opinion; and a 40% chance he’s writing a 5-4 “Katie-bar-the-door” decision."


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/06/28/supreme_court_bingo_2021_edition_145995.html

[I’m not Stu]

1-This is just a random Reason writer's speculation.
2-This case isn't very broad, it just involves Arizona's not accepting of provisional ballots cast at the wrong precinct and law banning ballot harvesting. Upholding those two laws wouldn't have much impact on Arizona elections as they're already in place and most states have such laws already. It makes sense the DNC would try to get these laws struck down but the almost certainly in vain attempt won't make voting laws any worse now than in 2020.

Why use such simple algorithms BTRD, when far more complex ones are just waiting out there to be savored?

"Overall, we might do some back-of-the-envelope odds-making as follows: A 5% chance Alito isn’t the author; a 20% chance there is a badly fractured opinion, of which Alito is the technical author; a 25% chance of Alito writing a 6-3 conservative opinion; and a 40% chance he’s writing a 5-4 “Katie-bar-the-door” decision."


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/06/28/supreme_court_bingo_2021_edition_145995.html

That is the most likely scenario. RIP Jim Clyburn, Terri Sewell, Cori Bush, Bennie Thompson, Troy Carter, Steve Cohen, and Nikema Williams.

[lfromnj]

I mean its nearly crrtain the DNC will lose this case, the only question is if its narrow or a large loss.
The idea that banning ballot harvesting should be illegal is absurd.

[I’m not Stu]

I mean its nearly crrtain the DNC will lose this case, the only question is if its narrow or a large loss.
The idea that banning ballot harvesting should be illegal is absurd.

Because the majority is conservative, many Democrats hope that it will be a narrow decision upholding the bans on ballot harvesting and out of precinct voting, without declaring Section 2’s results test unconstitutional.

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1409674534144200706

[I’m not Stu]

https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1409674534144200706

I expect Democrats to lose in the worst possible way in a 6-3 or 5-1-3 decision.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1409674534144200706

I expect Democrats to lose in the worst possible way in a 6-3 or 5-1-3 decision.

Yes, we know what you expect, cLaIrVoYaNt.

God, I hope Roberts & ACB both defect just to prove you wrong. They won't, but boy, it'd be awesome.

[I’m not Stu]

The main dissent will be written by Sotomayor.

[SteveRogers]

1-This is just a random Reason writer's speculation.
2-This case isn't very broad, it just involves Arizona's not accepting of provisional ballots cast at the wrong precinct and law banning ballot harvesting. Upholding those two laws wouldn't have much impact on Arizona elections as they're already in place and most states have such laws already. It makes sense the DNC would try to get these laws struck down but the almost certainly in vain attempt won't make voting laws any worse now than in 2020.

Why use such simple algorithms BTRD, when far more complex ones are just waiting out there to be savored?

"Overall, we might do some back-of-the-envelope odds-making as follows: A 5% chance Alito isn’t the author; a 20% chance there is a badly fractured opinion, of which Alito is the technical author; a 25% chance of Alito writing a 6-3 conservative opinion; and a 40% chance he’s writing a 5-4 “Katie-bar-the-door” decision."


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/06/28/supreme_court_bingo_2021_edition_145995.html

That is the most likely scenario. RIP Jim Clyburn, Terri Sewell, Cori Bush, Bennie Thompson, Troy Carter, Steve Cohen, and Nikema Williams.

It’s not a redistricting case.

[I’m not Stu]

1-This is just a random Reason writer's speculation.
2-This case isn't very broad, it just involves Arizona's not accepting of provisional ballots cast at the wrong precinct and law banning ballot harvesting. Upholding those two laws wouldn't have much impact on Arizona elections as they're already in place and most states have such laws already. It makes sense the DNC would try to get these laws struck down but the almost certainly in vain attempt won't make voting laws any worse now than in 2020.

Why use such simple algorithms BTRD, when far more complex ones are just waiting out there to be savored?

"Overall, we might do some back-of-the-envelope odds-making as follows: A 5% chance Alito isn’t the author; a 20% chance there is a badly fractured opinion, of which Alito is the technical author; a 25% chance of Alito writing a 6-3 conservative opinion; and a 40% chance he’s writing a 5-4 “Katie-bar-the-door” decision."


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/06/28/supreme_court_bingo_2021_edition_145995.html

That is the most likely scenario. RIP Jim Clyburn, Terri Sewell, Cori Bush, Bennie Thompson, Troy Carter, Steve Cohen, and Nikema Williams.

It’s not a redistricting case.

I know that. Killing the results test would also have an impact on redistricting despite not being a redistricting case. Sotomayor will write the longest dissent of her career ever.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1409885797084499972

[SnowLabrador]

Remember, Brnovich is running for Senate in Arizona. He's rigging his own election, much like Kemp did in 2018.