https://www.profitableratecpm.com/f4ffsdxe?key=39b1ebce72f3758345b2155c98e6709c
The Supreme Court was simply paralyzed, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, unable to overturn Texas’ hyper-partisan and likely racial gerrymander because the election it would govern is so close.
The status quo, she added, is not the new maximum gerrymander Texas adopted at the end of the summer. These are the 2021 maps that were used in the last two election cycles, were to govern the 2026 elections until August and will even be used for a special election in January.
Alito’s – and presumably the unsigned majority’s – interpretation of Purcell “gives every state the ability to hold illegal elections,” Kagan wrote.
Such signals from the high court are all the more useful as red states (and blue states in response) rush to circumvent their legislative districts, the better to stack the dice for a majority in the House before a voter has cast a vote.
“And even assuming that we are now at the ninth or tenth hour, whose choice was that?” she wrote. “It was, of course, the Texas legislature that decided to change its map six months before the March primaries.”
The status quo, she added, is not the new maximum gerrymander Texas adopted at the end of the summer. These are the 2021 maps that were used in the last two election cycles, were to govern the 2026 elections until August and will even be used for a special election in January.
Alito’s – and presumably the unsigned majority’s – interpretation of Purcell “gives every state the ability to hold illegal elections,” Kagan wrote.
Such signals from the high court are all the more useful as red states (and blue states in response) rush to circumvent their legislative districts, the better to stack the dice for a majority in the House before a voter has cast a vote.
Make the invocation of Purcell even more fragile in the case of Thursday — Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens — Texas only produced its new maps in August, under pressure from the Trump administration to gain a few more Republican seats. The plaintiffs challenging the maps and the district court, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, worked as quickly as possible — meaning the court just wrote a road map for illegal gerrymanders. Just wait to adopt them until the “eve” of the election, and no one can stop you.
“And even assuming that we are now at the ninth or tenth hour, whose choice was that?” she wrote. “It was, of course, the Texas legislature that decided to change its map six months before the March primaries.”
The status quo, she added, is not the new maximum gerrymander Texas adopted at the end of the summer. These are the 2021 maps that were used in the last two election cycles, were to govern the 2026 elections until August and will even be used for a special election in January.
Alito’s – and presumably the unsigned majority’s – interpretation of Purcell “gives every state the ability to hold illegal elections,” Kagan wrote.
Such signals from the high court are all the more useful as red states (and blue states in response) rush to circumvent their legislative districts, the better to stack the dice for a majority in the House before a voter has cast a vote.
This is not the first time that the right of the Supreme Court has invoked Purcell to defend Republican cards, even when they are the subject of comical trials far from the elections. In 2022, the Court blocked a district court order requiring Alabama to draw new maps, even though the state had nine months to draw new ones before the general election.
Make the invocation of Purcell even more fragile in the case of Thursday — Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens — Texas only produced its new maps in August, under pressure from the Trump administration to gain a few more Republican seats. The plaintiffs challenging the maps and the district court, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, worked as quickly as possible — meaning the court just wrote a road map for illegal gerrymanders. Just wait to adopt them until the “eve” of the election, and no one can stop you.
“And even assuming that we are now at the ninth or tenth hour, whose choice was that?” she wrote. “It was, of course, the Texas legislature that decided to change its map six months before the March primaries.”
The status quo, she added, is not the new maximum gerrymander Texas adopted at the end of the summer. These are the 2021 maps that were used in the last two election cycles, were to govern the 2026 elections until August and will even be used for a special election in January.
Alito’s – and presumably the unsigned majority’s – interpretation of Purcell “gives every state the ability to hold illegal elections,” Kagan wrote.
Such signals from the high court are all the more useful as red states (and blue states in response) rush to circumvent their legislative districts, the better to stack the dice for a majority in the House before a voter has cast a vote.
However, this election is 11 months away. Yet this close year — plus a March primary, which Texas could delay — counts as the “eve of an election,” Alito wrote in his agreement, so close to the vote that changing the maps risks confusing voters. It refers to the Purcell principle, which stems from a 2006 case regarding a change in Arizona’s photo ID laws “within weeks” of the election.
This is not the first time that the right of the Supreme Court has invoked Purcell to defend Republican cards, even when they are the subject of comical trials far from the elections. In 2022, the Court blocked a district court order requiring Alabama to draw new maps, even though the state had nine months to draw new ones before the general election.
Make the invocation of Purcell even more fragile in the case of Thursday — Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens — Texas only produced its new maps in August, under pressure from the Trump administration to gain a few more Republican seats. The plaintiffs challenging the maps and the district court, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, worked as quickly as possible — meaning the court just wrote a road map for illegal gerrymanders. Just wait to adopt them until the “eve” of the election, and no one can stop you.
“And even assuming that we are now at the ninth or tenth hour, whose choice was that?” she wrote. “It was, of course, the Texas legislature that decided to change its map six months before the March primaries.”
The status quo, she added, is not the new maximum gerrymander Texas adopted at the end of the summer. These are the 2021 maps that were used in the last two election cycles, were to govern the 2026 elections until August and will even be used for a special election in January.
Alito’s – and presumably the unsigned majority’s – interpretation of Purcell “gives every state the ability to hold illegal elections,” Kagan wrote.
Such signals from the high court are all the more useful as red states (and blue states in response) rush to circumvent their legislative districts, the better to stack the dice for a majority in the House before a voter has cast a vote.
However, this election is 11 months away. Yet this close year — plus a March primary, which Texas could delay — counts as the “eve of an election,” Alito wrote in his agreement, so close to the vote that changing the maps risks confusing voters. It refers to the Purcell principle, which stems from a 2006 case regarding a change in Arizona’s photo ID laws “within weeks” of the election.
“And even assuming that we are now at the ninth or tenth hour, whose choice was that?” she wrote. “It was, of course, the Texas legislature that decided to change its map six months before the March primaries.”
The status quo, she added, is not the new maximum gerrymander Texas adopted at the end of the summer. These are the 2021 maps that were used in the last two election cycles, were to govern the 2026 elections until August and will even be used for a special election in January.
Such signals from the high court are all the more useful as red states (and blue states in response) rush to circumvent their legislative districts, the better to stack the dice for a majority in the House before a voter has cast a vote.
