Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Kevin Morris

Rachel Gunter, Ph.D. 🗃️ @phdrachel.bsky.social · 35m

This is such a great way to explain this! 🗃️

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

We often say that the VRA had two hearts: The shield in Section 5 / preclearance, and the sword to strike down bad policies in Sec 2. In 2013, the Court broke the shield. In 2021, they bent the sword. Tomorrow's case could radically undermine what remains.

4 13

Reposted by Kevin Morris

Gary Chun @garychun.bsky.social · 40m

Scroll through and learn.

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

Tomorrow, SCOTUS will hear arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a major threat to (what remains of) the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But this isn't the first time the VRA has faced dire threats; in 2013 and 2021, SCOTUS weakened other provisions. We can learn from those why Callais could be so dangerous 🧵

1 2

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

This is directly responsive to Justice Kavanaugh's concern that Section 2 might extend indefinitely into the future. That's not so: Once racial residential segregation is overcome, and once white voters don't systematically vote for candidates that nonwhite voters dislike, Section 2 stops applying

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

Good piece over at ELB from Kerel Murray:
"By tying §2’s activation to changeable facts indicative of discrimination’s effects, Gingles both implements §2’s disparate-treatment design and ensures its self-liquidation."
electionlawblog.org?p=152501

Kerel Murray: False Conflict: Colorblindness and Section Two of the Voting Rights Act #ELB

The following is a guest post from Kerel Murray: Just in time for this week’s reargument of Louisiana v. Callais, I’ve posted to SSRN a draft of my latest Article, False Conflict: Colorblindness and S...

electionlawblog.org

1 1

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

We won't solve this problem today, or this year, or this decade. It's a fight that started long before any of us were here, and will likely continue till long after we're gone. But that doesn't excuse us from the fight.

10

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

Nothing is preordained, and some justices have indicated they don't want to take us over this cliff. Nevertheless, whatever happens, we must all continue to demand that the federal government protects voting rights.

1 12

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

We often say that the VRA had two hearts: The shield in Section 5 / preclearance, and the sword to strike down bad policies in Sec 2. In 2013, the Court broke the shield. In 2021, they bent the sword. Tomorrow's case could radically undermine what remains.

1 6 19

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

But the Court didn't stop in 2013. In 2021 (Brnovich v DNC), they undermined the ability of Section 2 to stop those "vote denial" practices from being overturned -- the ones that make casting a ballot harder. Although that case didn't touch racial gerrymandering, it led to a big drop in Sec 2 cases

1 1 7

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

And it's not just about partisan conflict: In many places, Section 2 has been used to overturn racially-discriminatory practices in non-partisan local elections. This is all at risk (If you want to learn more about this, read my colleagues' excellent brief in Callais)

www.brennancenter.org

1 9

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

You've probably heard about the big congressional districts at play in this case. They're important! But like preclearance, Sec 2 has had an enormous effect at the LOCAL level--allowing voters to overturn election schemes for school boards, city councils, and more that dilute nonwhite voters' voices

1 4 20

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

This is dangerously close to what the case SCOTUS is considering this week might do. This case strikes at the VRA's ability to prevent racial vote dilution all around the country (under Sec 2). The last time the Court made it easier, localities jumped at the opportunity. They might do so again now.

1 1 11

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

We found that Shelby County also led to more vote dilution at the local level: Namely, by allowing once-covered municipalities to annex more new residents -- and these new residents were, on average, considerably whiter than the city. This "diluted" the nonwhite share of these cities

1 1 10

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

But Shelby County didn't just drive up the turnout gap. Preclearance stopped policies that would make voting harder ('vote denial') and ALSO policies that would make votes cast by Americans of color matter less ('vote dilution'). In fact, most of the policies stopped by Sec 5 were dilution ones!

1 1 10

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

As we showed in a @brennancenter.org report, and a forthcoming paper at the Journal of Politics, this led to a major expansion in the racial turnout gap in parts of the country now free from preclearance
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

1 2 8

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

Writing for the dissenting justices, on the other hand, RBG famously warned that "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

1 8

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

In Shelby County, the Court threw out the formula used to determine which places should be covered by this special formula. Writing for the majority, the Chief Justice wrote that race relations in the nation had changed dramatically and that this "preclearance condition" was no longer warranted

1 8

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

Between 1965 and 2013, thousands of likely discriminatory policies were stopped before they went into effect. The overwhelming majority of the policies that were stopped were at the LOCAL level--the sorts of policies that were most likely to fly under-the-radar of national news and organizations

1 8

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

The first big attack came in 2013, with Shelby County v. Holder. Until 2013, states and localities with a history of racist voter suppression had to get permission from the feds before they could change their election policies. The policies would be blocked if they were likely to be discriminatory

1 8

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 1h

Tomorrow, SCOTUS will hear arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a major threat to (what remains of) the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But this isn't the first time the VRA has faced dire threats; in 2013 and 2021, SCOTUS weakened other provisions. We can learn from those why Callais could be so dangerous 🧵

2 21 41

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 3h

Me and a lot of other people — but thanks!!

1

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 5h

We now know that in the aftermath of Shelby County there was an explosion in vote dilution (via annexations) in once-covered municipalities. As ever, keeping our eye on the local level will be of paramount importance. Unfortunately, the decline of local media will make this v difficult

3 17

Reposted by Kevin Morris

Sally Hudson @sallylhudson.bsky.social · 5h

Virginia — we have our own state Voting Rights Act that protects our right to continue this work
— but only with an AG and Gov who are willing.

It’s among the sky-high stakes of November’s election.

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 5h

As we head into tomorrow, don't forget about *local* politics. We're all focused on Congressional districts, but Section 2 has been used to dismantle HUNDREDS of discriminatory town, city, and county plans — very often striking down at-large systems that can't be reduced to "partisan gerrymandering"

8 30

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 5h

As we head into tomorrow, don't forget about *local* politics. We're all focused on Congressional districts, but Section 2 has been used to dismantle HUNDREDS of discriminatory town, city, and county plans — very often striking down at-large systems that can't be reduced to "partisan gerrymandering"

1 4 16

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 5h

Will the Supreme Court Use a Louisiana Case to Gut the Voting Rights Act? www.nytimes.com/2025/10/14/u...

Will the Supreme Court Use a Louisiana Case to Gut the Voting Rights Act?

The justices have shown a willingness to chip away at the landmark civil rights legislation. A Louisiana case could unravel much of its remaining power.

www.nytimes.com

3 7 14

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 18h

Vote denial; vote dilution; Section 2; Section 5... It's a lot! But it matters!

1 4