SCOTUS: Racial Gerrymandering Just 'Partisan Goals'
Yes, you read that right. Despite a lower court's 2-1 ruling that Texas’s redistricting map 'likely discriminates on the basis of race,' the Supreme Court permitted it to stand for 2026. This isn't the first time the court has chipped away at voting rights protections. Just consider Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, which gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act itself, paving the way for
states like Texas to implement restrictive voting laws and, apparently, racially biased maps with nary a concern from the highest bench. Justice Elena Kagan rightly dissented, stating that this intervention 'ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race.' So, when a state explicitly draws lines to favor one party, and those lines
just happen to disproportionately affect minority voters, it's not discrimination; it's merely efficient party management. How convenient, when the court itself has a distinctly partisan lean, that it finds 'partisan goals' perfectly acceptable?