Supreme Court's Alabama voting rights decision contradicts its own promises and enables racial gerrymandering

Source: Mark Joseph Stern. "The Supreme Court just made its awful voting rights decision so much worse.." May 12, 2026. slate.com

The Gist

The author argues that the Supreme Court broke its own promises by allowing Alabama to redraw voting districts in a way that hurts Black voters. Just 12 days after promising they wouldn't overturn voting rights protections, the court did exactly that through a rushed decision that ignores clear evidence of racial discrimination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's shadow docket order allowing Alabama to redraw its congressional map contradicts the court's recent assurances in Callais and effectively enables racial gerrymandering against Black voters

Premises

  1. Justice Alito explicitly promised in Callais that the court was not overruling Allen v. Milligan, yet the Alabama decision directly contradicts Allen's requirements
  2. The district court found clear evidence of intentional racial discrimination by Alabama legislators through an extensive 11-day trial with 51 witnesses and 790 exhibits
  3. Alito promised in Callais that constitutional protections against intentional racial discrimination would remain intact, but the court ignored such discrimination findings in Alabama
  4. The court selectively applied the Purcell principle, invoking it to protect Republican gerrymanders while abandoning it when it would protect Democratic interests
  5. The court rushed this decision despite Alabama's primary being only 8 days away with mail voting already underway for 5 weeks, violating its own stated concerns about election timing

Assumptions

View this argument on LogicFirst.ai