The advocate for voting rights, Marc Elias, posted this on Democracy Docket.
Marc writes:
Four years ago, on Jan. 27, 2022, Black Alabama voters notched a significant victory when a federal court ordered a new congressional map to be put in place with two, rather than one, minority opportunity districts.
Ten days later, at the request of the Republican state officials, the Supreme Court blocked that victory. “Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties, and voters, among others,” Justices Kavanaugh and Alito wrote. The primary was nearly four months away.
On Nov. 21, 2025, Black and Latino voters successfully blocked Texas’ new gerrymandered map in federal court.
Two weeks later, the Supreme Court stayed that order, holding that in granting minority voters relief, “the District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.” The Texas congressional primary was not until March 3, 2026.
Last night, at approximately 7:20 p.m., the Supreme Court expedited its normal process to allow Louisiana to take advantage of last week’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act. The election in Louisiana is already underway — voting has started, and ballots have been cast.
Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas explained that they were required to act because otherwise the “2026 congressional elections in Louisiana [will] be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.”
The same Court that blocked relief for Black Alabamians because the primary was four months away, and stayed a Texas order because it might disrupt an ongoing primary campaign, had no such concerns when the beneficiaries were Republican politicians rather than minority voters.
The fallout was instantaneous. Louisiana Republicans can now redistrict to replace at least one Black Democratic member of Congress with a Republican. And they can do it on very short notice.
It was not enough for the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act. When push came to shove, the conservative majority rushed to do it in time to impact the 2026 election.
The damage the Court has done is incalculable.
I am under no illusions that the Supreme Court applies the law without regard to political outcome. I understand that the deck is stacked against us. But I am embarrassed to say that I was surprised by this outcome.
I expected the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act. I was prepared for it to do so under the cynical guise of redefining what it means to discriminate against minority voters.
But I confess that I did not think the Supreme Court — even this Supreme Court — would short-circuit its normal process to allow Louisiana to suspend ongoing elections after ballots had been cast in furtherance of enabling Republican gerrymandering.
We expect politicians to act in their partisan interest. But we expect Courts to at least hide their own preferences.
Courts typically wax poetic about voters and the foundational importance of their rights. But in this instance, the citizens of Louisiana are an afterthought. Black voters are simply an obstacle to be diminished and overcome. The masks are off.
For the last 60 years, as conservative politicians have thrown up barriers and silenced their own citizens, courts have been the last line of defense for voting rights. That backstop is now gone. What we are witnessing is not just a legal setback. Rather, the Court is undergoing a fundamental realignment of who it is willing to protect.
I have won and lost important cases. I know that Courts can be unpredictable and disappointing. I know that justices are not merely neutral arbiters, and justice is not always served.
But the events of the last week are painful in a different way. It is not that the Court ruled against what I believe the law and Constitution require, but for the first time, it seems the justices have given up even trying to hide what they are doing. Maybe because society no longer requires the facade.
If I am honest, there is a part of me that wants to just give up. I found myself awake last night asking, what is the point of litigating voting and election cases if the scales of justice are this tilted against you and your clients?
But that is not an option for me, for my clients or those who care about democracy.
– Marc Elias
Swimanög 