{"id":87556,"date":"2026-04-30T17:50:36","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T17:50:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/diyhaven858.wasmer.app\/index.php\/john-roberts-effort-to-gut-the-voting-rights-act-is-complete\/"},"modified":"2026-04-30T17:50:36","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T17:50:36","slug":"john-roberts-effort-to-gut-the-voting-rights-act-is-complete","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/diyhaven858.wasmer.app\/index.php\/john-roberts-effort-to-gut-the-voting-rights-act-is-complete\/","title":{"rendered":"John Roberts\u2019 effort to gut the Voting Rights Act is complete"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n<\/p>\n
\n
The Supreme Court\u2019s decision Wednesday rolling back protections for Black and Latino voters marks another dramatic turn in the long-fought effort by conservative justices to reverse measures vital to overcoming America\u2019s legacy of race discrimination.<\/p>\n
The decision also marks a defining moment for the court under Chief Justice John Roberts, who declared soon after joining the bench in 2005, \u201cthe way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.\u201d<\/p>\n
Three years ago, the justices by the same 6-3 vote as Wednesday ended racial affirmative action in higher education admissions. The newest decision, which follows a series of rulings led by Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito restricting the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, will reverberate deeper.<\/p>\n
Taken as a whole, the pattern would mean fewer chances for minority voters to elect candidates of their choosing. That, in turn, would mean fewer opportunities for the voice of Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and other minorities in government.<\/p>\n
The gravity of such consequences and the entrenched divisions among the justices were clear as the opinion was announced from the courtroom bench.<\/p>\n
As Roberts first revealed that the case of Louisiana v. Callais would be delivered, he said Alito had the majority opinion. Roberts, whose seniority gives him the assignment power, had turned the case over to a colleague with whom he has long worked on racial issues.<\/p>\n
Belying the historic nature of the decision, Alito began in his usual dry tone, detailing the lower court action in the long running Louisiana case, which began with redistricting after the 2020 census. He related the intricacies of the VRA\u2019s disputed Section 2 that prohibits discrimination and recounted the evolution of standards for assessing when Black and other minority voters may succeed in a challenge to district maps that dilute their voting power.<\/p>\n
Such dilution can arise, for example, from legislative \u201ccracking\u201d and \u201cpacking\u201d methods \u2013 that is, dispersing or concentrating Black voters among districts to weaken their overall voting power.<\/p>\n
No longer would challengers be able to point to the effects of vote dilution, Alito said. Rather, they would have to show that state legislators likely had discriminatory purpose or, as Alito spelled out in his opinion, that \u201ccircumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.\u201d<\/p>\n
Alito\u2019s bench statement and written opinion on behalf of the six conservative justices leaned heavily on the view of Roberts\u2019 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder that voting safeguards enshrined in 1965 were no longer essential to America.<\/p>\n
unknown content item<\/p>\n
–<\/p>\n
\u201c(V)ast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South\u2026\u201d Alito wrote. Adapting a line from Roberts\u2019 2013 decision, he added: \u201cAs this Court has recognized, \u2018things have changed dramatically\u2019 in the decades since the passage of the Voting Rights Act.\u201d<\/p>\n
When Justice Elena Kagan, who sits next to Alito on the elevated bench, then spoke for the three dissenting liberals, she referred explicitly and emphatically to Shelby County and the line of cases eviscerating voting rights protections.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis court\u2019s project to destroy the Voting Rights Act is now complete,\u201d she declared. Of the act, she said, \u201cIt was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers.\u201d<\/p>\n
As both Roberts and Alito looked out at spectators expressionless, Kagan said, \u201cFor over a decade, this court has set its sights on the Voting Rights Act.\u201d<\/p>\n
Indeed, Wednesday\u2019s decision may have been inevitable, given the transformed bench since Roberts took control over two decades ago. Four new conservative justices have joined, three of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term.<\/p>\n
Now the Roberts Court\u2019s goal notably aligns with Trump\u2019s own efforts to curtail voting-rights protections and influence the upcoming midterm elections. Officials in some Republican-dominated states, including Florida, were immediately poised Wednesday to take advantage of the ruling and redraw their maps.<\/p>\n
And with what Kagan described as the court\u2019s \u201cmade-up and impossible-to-meet evidentiary standards,\u201d she warned that the decision \u201cgreenlights districting plans\u201d that would disadvantage minorities nationwide.<\/p>\n
George W. Bush nominees work in tandem<\/h3>\n
Roberts has led the court to end race-based policies in public schools, in higher education and, most sweepingly, in voting laws. With a few exceptions, he has been in sync with Alito, who joined the bench in January 2006, four months after Roberts.<\/p>\n
Both men were appointed by President George W. Bush, and while they differ temperamentally and in regard for institutional appearances, they are more often than not together.<\/p>\n
When Roberts held prominent roles in the Ronald Reagan and then George H.W. Bush administrations in the 1980s and 1990s, he advocated for a limited interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. In memos from the time, Roberts demonstrated that he believed federal protections for Black, Hispanic and other minority voters from the 1960s civil rights era were no longer warranted.<\/p>\n\n