Althouse: "Race and partisanship have closely tracked each other for decades. But the justices said that under their new standard..."

June 4, 2026

"Race and partisanship have closely tracked each other for decades. But the justices said that under their new standard..."

"... courts must disentangle the two and could step in only if race, not politics, was at play. Analysts who cheered as well as those who criticized the ruling agreed that the justices were signaling that from now on lawmakers — not the courts — should be in the driver’s seat of redistricting."

From "In Alabama Ruling, Supreme Court Signals Limited Role for Federal Courts in Redistricting Fights/In an emergency ruling on Tuesday night, the court’s conservative majority gave a first glimpse into congressional district battles under a weakened Voting Rights Act" (NYT).

32 comments:

rehajm said...: …wake me when we start fighting to remove unconstitutional districts in places where Democrats control the gerrymandering….; 6/4/26, 7:14 AM
Achilles said...: LOL!

Democrats are screwed. They have been using this as a one way ratchet for decades.

Get ready for the political wilderness. traitors.; 6/4/26, 7:16 AM
Jamie said...: How is the Voting Rights Act "weakened" by the ruling? Unless it wasn't (or at least isn't now) intended to do what it said it was intended to do?; 6/4/26, 7:21 AM
n.n said...: Critical Bloc Theory and Diversity underlying DEIst policies.; 6/4/26, 7:24 AM
narciso said...: Prog swiss army knife; 6/4/26, 7:26 AM
Leland said...: The argument the left is making that the Voting Rights Act was meant to protect Democrat districts. Not only is that political; it presumes that minorities must always vote Democrat despite Democrats long history (supported the South in the Civil War, created the KKK, used the SPLC to continue funding the KKK) of abusing minorities. That is what weakens the Voting Rights Act.; 6/4/26, 7:33 AM
Achilles said...: Jamie said...

How is the Voting Rights Act "weakened" by the ruling? Unless it wasn't (or at least isn't now) intended to do what it said it was intended to do?

Right question, but you should know the answer.

The only purpose of any legislation is to control the voting/election process and keep more globalist bought and paid for tools in power.

The democrats are screwed by this because all it did was swing about 30 seats that were proportionately Republican to democrat.

Democrats are increasingly condensed into urban conclaves where they can farm homeless and illegal voters and they used these "racially diverse" people to game the system to have more representation than they should.

People keep fleeing the blue states because democrats turn them into shitholes and they packed illegals in there to keep their numbers up in congress.

Come 2030 there will be a structural 250-185 split in congress in favor of Republicans if they stop counting illegals on the census and stop democrats from using race to gerrymander.; 6/4/26, 7:40 AM
Jamie said...: Right question, but you should know the answer.

Indeed!; 6/4/26, 7:42 AM
GRW3 said...: In the '60s, at the time of the Civil Rights Act, minority communities were more segregated. It was relatively easy to take your district cookie cutter and make a minority majority district. I think that practice led to the fall of the Dems in the south, as they lost the minority anchors for multiple mostly suburban districts. With time, there has been a minority migration to more dispersed communities. Over this time, I have heard Dem politicians bemoaning this change as it dilutes their base. Making a guaranteed minority majority district can now require census data and high-powered computer modeling.; 6/4/26, 8:08 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: Just skimmed through the dissent by the Wise Latina. I think she's using AI, just like the district judge. Page after page of unreadable Bullshit with an ending thats based purely on politics.

There's no excuse for a Federal Judge stepping in 5 months before the election and issuing an injuction and demanding a State use his map.; 6/4/26, 8:19 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: The big picture is the Democrat run states have been gerrymandering with little or no interference from the judges. However, every R run state that's gerrymandered has been stopped by a district court judge, and then overturned on appeal - usually with screeches and wails from the liberal/left minority.; 6/4/26, 8:21 AM
Josephbleau said...: My rule for district creation would be that no more than 15% of the population if a district should reside further than the mean distance from the centroid of the district to each edge or corner boundary point from that centroid. That largely prevents combining two separate nodes into one district.; 6/4/26, 8:46 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: I’m fascinated by the new Leftist DNC talking point that the recent decision on majority minority districts “gutted the Voting Rights Act” when it literally says in the ruling “in order to align to the VRA” text race cannot be a factor. The temporary “exceptions” have timed out. Disregarding race is the only way to adhere to the VRA.

The NYT is simply asserting without evidence that it “weakens” the VRA.; 6/4/26, 9:05 AM
bagoh20 said...: Create a hands-off districting system that is truly unbiased and blind to party and race, and then see who is against using it. I have a pretty good idea how that vote would go.; 6/4/26, 9:13 AM
JAORE said...: "They'll put y'all back in chains"
- Joe Biden (the Uniter)
The current chains, like horrifyingly bad public schools without options (Thanks Teacher's Unions), are sufficient for the needs of the (D), Joe.
I live in Alabama. The map tossed out was openly discussed as a guaranteed second "black" district when unveiled and promoted. We knew it then, we know it now.
Like we knew/know about the SPLC.; 6/4/26, 9:24 AM
Howard said...: The state control of their elections to Congress is a plenary power that could only be overruled by an act of Congress. The current state of gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle is making Rube Goldberg spin in his grave. But hey, it's all legal. Congress has the power to change that at any time. With a super majority, they don't even need presidential approval.; 6/4/26, 9:33 AM
Kevin said...: Just start referring to Congressional Districts as "plantations".

A plantation being is a large-scale estate primarily dedicated to cultivating cash crops—such as graft, payoffs, bribery, or union dues.; 6/4/26, 9:44 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Gerrymandering has a longer history in politics than the VRA and should be disconnected from the ginned up race agitation.; 6/4/26, 9:56 AM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: I'll use small words, to explain to the slow:
Being a "black Democrat" doesn't give you more rights than just being a "Democrat"
"White Republican" voters, and "Republican" voters, have the exact same rights as do Democrat or "black Democrat" voters.

If white Democrats gerrymander to make it so that black Democrats can't win elections, that is racial discrimination.

If Republicans gerrymander so that Democrats can't win elections, that's just gerrymandering, and the skin colors on either side don't matter.

Just as when IL and CA Democrats gerrymandered to remove political power from Republican voters; 6/4/26, 10:06 AM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: Any time Democrats want to end ALL gerrymandering, I'm up for it. Here's the allowed new rules:
Districts must, in this priority order:
1: Honor political and geographical boundaries
2: Be contiguous
3: Be compact
4: Have as equal population as practicable
5: Not separate "communities of interest"

What's that mean?
1: If you have a city / county whose population is greater than the size of a district, then all but one of the districts the city / county is part of must be completely contained within the city / county
-> No "cracking" cities, either to swamp the city voters (which the 3 leftists find to be a great horror) ore to swamp the surrounding suburbs (which the 3 leftists were perfectly fine with)

2: It's perfectly reasonable to separate two districts by a river or other geographic boundary, and honoring such a boundary trumps "compact" and "contiguous". So does honoring city / county boundaries. "This district is lumpy because it consists of 5 full counties" is in fact a perfect justification for violating "compact" and "contiguous".

If Democrats want to accept this, then we can talk. But Democrats won't accept this, because too many of their voters insist on living in left wing bubbles where everyone is just like them, or else has to shut up. And that means that in the ordinary course of events Democrat voters are "gerrymandering" themselves into D districts with lots of "wasted" votes.

So for 2028 we need to gerrymander the hell out of the Democrats, do our best to wipe them out of every place where Republicans have power, the way the Dems have wiped us out in the Northeast, and IL, and CA.

Then we need to ensure an honest Census in 2030, and gerrymander the hell out of 2032.

And then in 2026, Dems will get tired of losing, come up with a new DLC, tell their freaks to STFU, and win. :-(

Either that or their freaks will start a civil war after realizing they can never win via voting; 6/4/26, 10:24 AM
Dude1394 said...: Any outlet not showing the abomination that was that district should be immediately discounted.; 6/4/26, 10:32 AM
Olson Johnson is right! said...: Zip Codes--thats it. Use US Postal Service codes to create congressional districts. No one wants this solution because it takes away power from the bastards in power who use the map drawing power to choose their voters--rather than the voters choosing their representative.; 6/4/26, 11:05 AM
bagoh20 said...: It's almost like politicians don't trust voters to vote right.; 6/4/26, 11:21 AM
rehajm said...: I dunno- look how easy it was for voters to de-rino Indiana when it mattered. Part of the problem is voter apathy, ignorance, bad priorities...; 6/4/26, 12:04 PM
Peachy said...: "weakened'

no - Strengthened... to remove racism. The white left are liars.; 6/4/26, 2:03 PM
Peachy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/4/26, 2:04 PM
Peachy said...: So only blacks should represent blacks ..and only whites can represent whites..???. That's what the left want.
Racism and segregation - straight up.
Martin Luther king is spinning.; 6/4/26, 2:11 PM
mccullough said...: It will be good to see the CBC shrink. Most of them are an embarrassment. They should stay on the Memphis City Council; 6/4/26, 3:48 PM
FortheloveofIce said...: This is a good thing. The more political power the average African American has, the worse off real Americans are. The U.S lost its way when we abolished literacy tests for black voters.
Maybe we should re-settle all of the white South Africans we're giving preferential immiration status to the southern states.
Now THOSE folks know the problems that come with letting blacks vote willy nilly.
MAGA!; 6/4/26, 5:29 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/4/26, 6:03 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/4/26, 6:04 PM
Achilles said...: Howard said...

The state control of their elections to Congress is a plenary power that could only be overruled by an act of Congress. The current state of gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle is making Rube Goldberg spin in his grave. But hey, it's all legal. Congress has the power to change that at any time. With a super majority, they don't even need presidential approval.

This is one of those issues that highlights why at least 75% of congress should be put in jail or executed.; 6/4/26, 7:27 PM