Section 2 of Voting Rights Act is on the Chopping Block

[Frodo]

Let's suppose Democrats against all odds hold on to both the House and Senate this November, with enough seats in the latter chamber to overcome the legislative filibuster, thereby clearing the way for the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement bill.  Given how the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has been chipping away at the original 1965 Voting Rights Act over the decades until it is effectively rendered null and void, how do we know the same fate doesn't also await its successor by this same court?

John Roberts’s Long Game

[Skill and Chance]

I think this is an overreaction TBH.  Republicans will slowly realize over this decade that they are now the party that benefits from higher turnout most of the time. 

[politicallefty]

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.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Let's suppose Democrats against all odds hold on to both the House and Senate this November, with enough seats in the latter chamber to overcome the legislative filibuster, thereby clearing the way for the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement bill.  Given how the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has been chipping away at the original 1965 Voting Rights Act over the decades until it is effectively rendered null and void, how do we know the same fate doesn't also await its successor by this same court?

John Roberts’s Long Game

Because when and if the Crt strikes down Voting Rights Act or DC statehood this will give Ds a mandate to add Justices, they can't say it now there is no Mandate to Add Justices, but we don't need 4 we only need two and Child's and Kruger are on reserve to make it 6/5 not 7/6 and once again making John Roberts the swing vote

If they say it now, without a mandate voters will reject Crt packing

[NewYorkExpress]

Let's suppose Democrats against all odds hold on to both the House and Senate this November, with enough seats in the latter chamber to overcome the legislative filibuster, thereby clearing the way for the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement bill.  Given how the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has been chipping away at the original 1965 Voting Rights Act over the decades until it is effectively rendered null and void, how do we know the same fate doesn't also await its successor by this same court?

John Roberts’s Long Game

I actually think Roberts won't be part of the majority on this one. He's going to write an opinion that does uphold the Alabama map, but also states keeps section two in place.

The other five conservatives will vote to strike down section two.

[Torie]

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.

[Frodo]

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 am happy that at least some part of the Voting Rights Act will survive this court. 

[David Hume]

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.

[politicallefty]

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.