Supreme Court Betrayal Was Fueled by Falsehoods
The High Court’s Reliance on Flawed Data
Justice Samuel Alito and his conservative allies on the Supreme Court recently betrayed the American electorate by gutting the Voting Rights Act based on a demonstrably false premise.
This landmark decision effectively strips away protections for minority voters in states like Louisiana, where the court claimed racial discrimination is a relic of the past.
Alito authored the majority opinion, which was joined by five other right-wing justices to dismantle Section 2 of the law.
They argued that Black voters now participate at similar rates to white voters, making federal oversight unnecessary. This move marks a radical shift in American law that rewards past progress by destroying the very tools that achieved it.
The Evidence of Fudged Data
Evidence uncovered by a review by The Guardian reveals that Alito’s core justification relied on a misleading data analysis copied almost verbatim from a Department of Justice brief.
The brief claimed that Black voter turnout exceeded white turnout in two of the last five presidential elections both nationally and in Louisiana. Experts point out that this conclusion was reached through a highly unusual and questionable methodology.
The Department of Justice calculated turnout as a proportion of the total population over 18 rather than the citizen voting age population. This flawed approach includes non-citizens and people with felony convictions who are legally ineligible to vote.
When the data is analyzed using the standard citizen voting age population, Black turnout in Louisiana only exceeded white turnout once, specifically in 2012.
A Calculated Strategy for Disenfranchisement
Political analysts believe this was a deliberate strategy to manipulate the record and justify a pre-determined political outcome.
Michael McDonald, a leading expert on voter turnout, stated that someone likely knew exactly what they were doing by choosing a methodology that favors the government’s interest.
The conservative majority cherry-picked specific years and methods while ignoring a long-term, concerning trend in the data. Recent election cycles actually show a widening turnout gap that has “exploded” over the last 15 years.
Alito’s claim that parity has been achieved is simply not factual when viewed against the broader reality of American elections.
This reliance on questionable data exposes the court’s willingness to abandon objective truth to further a partisan agenda.
⭐ No paywalls. No corporate script. Fact-based news powered by readers like you. ⭐
The Future of the Voting Rights Project
The consequences of this ruling will likely accelerate the disenfranchisement of minority communities across the South.
Researchers note that previous court decisions, such as the 2013 Shelby County ruling, already directly increased the racial turnout gap.
Alito’s opinion uses the temporary success of the Voting Rights Act as a weapon to destroy its future effectiveness.
Kareem Crayton of the Brennan Center for Justice calls this logic a “ruse” designed to end the project of racial equality prematurely.
Voters are now trapped in a reality where the highest court in the land ignores empirical evidence to facilitate voting restrictions.
This decision leaves the American democratic process vulnerable to the very discrimination the law was designed to prevent.
⭐ Share this widely if it speaks to you. These articles are never locked behind a paywall. ⭐
They clearly used the data that supports their bias.
From what I understand, turning this back will no different than trying to reverse Roe vs Wade. Neither will happen until there is a proper balance of Supreme Court justices…and that will take some time. And then there are the state level justices. What a mess.