SCOTUS rules on Callais

quote:

---

will this apply to the rest of the unconstitutional redistricting happening in cali and the rest of the shite states?

---

quote:

---

will this apply to the rest of the unconstitutional redistricting happening in cali and the rest of the shite states?

---

quote:

---

Looks like if only Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissented ... it's good news!

---

quote:

---

Jackson is claiming

---

quote:

---

(d) Under the updated Gingles framework, the facts of this suit easily require affirmance. Louisiana’s enactment of SB8 triggered strict scrutiny because the State’s underlying goal was racial. The State configured District 6 to achieve a black voting-age population over 50% because the Robinson court held that §2 likely required the creation of an additional majority-black district. The State’s intentional compliance with the court’s demands constituted an “express acknowledgment that race played a role in the drawing of district lines.” Alexander, 602 U. S., at 8.

No compelling interest justifies SB8 because §2 did not require the State to create a new majority-minority district. At every step of the Gingles framework, the Robinson plaintiffs failed to prove their §2 case. On the first Gingles precondition, the Robinson plaintiffs did not meet their burden because they did not provide an illustrative map that met all the State’s nonracial goals, including the State’s political goals. On the second and third Gingles preconditions, the Robinson plaintiffs offered evidence that black and white voters consistently supported different candidates, but their analysis did not control for partisan preferences. And on the totality of circumstances, the Robinson plaintiffs failed to show an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination, instead relying on historical evidence and evidence that failed to disentangle race from politics. Pp. 32–35.

732 F. Supp. 3d 574, affirmed and remanded.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.
KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

---