Let’s start with some unsurprising news:
The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a stay on an old Alabama map that had been found to intentionally dilute Black voters, likely setting the state up to eliminate at least one Democratic district.
In the ruling, handed down on the shadow docket, the unnamed majority did not bother to explain its reasoning. This is all the more stark given that Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais — the decision that killed the remnants of the Voting Rights Act in late April — took pains to insist that his ruling did not overturn Allen v. Milligan, the case on the Alabama map. This is likely because the Court decided that case just three years ago, and Alito was searching for some reason to differentiate it from Callais — landing on the fact that the Alabama map also violated the 14th Amendment, a piece missing from Callais.
That cobbled-together reasoning held up for all of two weeks.
It’s like they’re not even trying anymore. They’re just issuing rulings from the throne like the kings they think they are.
Speaking of not trying, here’s Greg Sargent’s interview with Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell:
But over the weekend, many Democrats were heartened by an idea, floated by The Downballot, that could potentially save those four seats. The idea was that the Virginia legislature and governor could lower the retirement age of the state Supreme Court judges to remove them, replace them with new judges, and then get the court to rehear the case and decide it in their favor, restoring the lost map.
Yet Surovell insisted in an interview with The New Republic that the plan is unworkable. He cited a May 12 deadline set by the state Department of Elections for having congressional maps entered into the state’s election system. That’s necessary in order to be prepared for the congressional primaries set for August 1, for which early voting starts in mid-June.
That May 12 deadline would not leave enough time to execute the end run, Surovell said. The tactic would involve state legislative votes lowering the retirement age for judges followed by a new hearing of the case and other associated procedural arcana.
[…]
Surovell said that practical considerations weren’t the only thing motivating the decision not to exercise the retirement-age tactic. “Wiping out the entire Supreme Court is an incredibly extreme step to take over a decision you don’t like,” Surovell said.
When I pointed out that the president of the United States has commanded multiple GOP states to maximally gerrymander precisely in order to hold power while his approval rating hovers in the 30s—itself a rather extreme move—Surovell acknowledged the point. But he added that Democrats had successfully passed a hard-fought referendum to redraw the map under fast-moving circumstances. “We went through this referendum to try to protect American democracy,” Surovell said.
[Details of how Republicans are redistricting no matter what removed because we all know it]
When I asked Surovell about this takeaway—that Republicans keep finding ways around obstacles and Democrats don’t—he rejected the premise, noting that the successful referendum resulted in the expenditure of around $100 million. “I don’t think that was insignificant,” Surovell told me, adding that it’s still likely that Democrats will win two of the four lost seats.
So the accomplishment here was throwing away $100 million because Virginia Democrats aren’t willing to push hard like Republicans in the South? This is insanity.
Republicans care more. That’s all there is to it. Unless we throw out a bunch of Democrats who don’t care as much, we’re looking at years, maybe decades of white authoritarian minority rule because they’re willing to exercise raw power in the way that our “leaders” aren’t. Also, we have enough money. We don’t have as much as Republicans, but $100 million is a lot of money. We just need to make it count when we spend it.
