Alex Ebert

Journalist/Lawyer. State litigation senior correspondent for @BLAW @BGOV @TAX @ENVIRONMENT [email protected] Tips on NJ, FL courts? DM for Signal

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

The Supreme Court weakened a key piece of the Voting Rights Act, making voting discrimination cases dramatically harder to bring in federal court. Cases citing Section 2 of the Act plummeted 60%, a @BLaw analysis shows. Here's a 🧵on our reporting
https://t.co/tVfMhBmyZx

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman @brettnolan To have maps drawn free of intentional racial discrimination, no?

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

After Callais I wondered in chats with election law litigators whether SCOTUS would eventually rule that states’ political gerrymanders trump the constitutional rights of voters under the 14th Amendment.

Tonight the court decided just that in Allen v. Milligan. See highlights.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman @brettnolan Also, I’ve greatly enjoyed this chat guys.

I’m really looking forward to watching what groups do with this ruling—and how it could have broader impacts on state law based claims in this realm (Florida constitution especially).

I expect it’ll be cited/used by both parties, BTW

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman @brettnolan I don’t see how you and I disagree. SCOTUS makes it so with Callais/this Milligan.

Doesn’t matter whether folks like it —this is the law now.

Show the impossible map or take your ball and go home. That’s what the 14th Amendment/VRA redistricting claims can be reduced to

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman @brettnolan Going forward there could be the most explicit discrimination by lawmakers. But if plaintiffs don’t bring forward a map that checks all of the state’s criteria they can’t win.

Protect incumbents. Combine X counties, whatever. Move the goalposts, win the game.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman @brettnolan Think you might be looking past the setup in this case.

Here we have a case where lower court (two Trump appointees) found there was intentional discrimination. Yet, SCOTUS says the lack of map—that lower court says is impossible without discrimination—blocks claim. Circular.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman @brettnolan Put bluntly: meeting criteria that can’t be met without discrimination, to prove a discrimination claim, is the circular problem.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman @brettnolan Sure. SCOTUS says 14A violation can’t be found unless there’s a map that accomplishes all state criteria.

Those criteria are impossible to meet in map that doesn’t discriminate against X voters intentionally.

Thus, now criteria can (and have) trumped intentional discrimination

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@brettnolan @teafortillerman Think you misunderstand where I’m coming from. I’m not criticizing the court.

Reading the order it looks like SCOTUS—at least the majority—agree with my reading.

And I personally have no investment in any standard. They can make the bar as high or low as they’d like.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@brettnolan @teafortillerman Not sure where you’re going here.

But I see no issue with this claim, beyond stating that there seems to be an argument that minority voting patterns change marginally, election to election. True, but how that impacts standards seems squishy, no?

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@brettnolan @teafortillerman Again, thanks for this thought. But again, we part ways.

This evidence, with local voting pattern data, is exactly what has been used to show racially polarized voting in litigation.

Disentangling in many areas likely ain’t possible. See Tennessee/Memphis.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@brettnolan @teafortillerman Hi Brett. Thanks for these thoughts.

We’re going to part ways because your first point here is circular. If, in order to have valid 14A claim, one must meet state criteria, those criteria now trump 14A claims—you need this to get that (higher in order of operation).

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@mattlinla If you're not seeing it that's because my fat thumb didn't highlight the surrounding sentences. (I need a better way of doing this on phone)

Both points--state's reason of incumbent protection; issue of evidence of racially-polarized voting not sufficient--are on that page.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman There are no losers in conversations, my friend. I always learn—especially when I don’t agree.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

@teafortillerman Hi Joe. I read this ruling and Callais a couple times. Where do you think I’m incorrect?

Sincere question. Would love to hear your thoughts.

[Attorney General Steve Marshall @AGSteveMarshall]

🚨🚨🚨Major Victory Alert🚨🚨🚨

Alabama's Congressional maps ARE constitutional and lawful.

Read more ⬇

[Sam Levine @srl]

In 2023, chief justice John Roberts & SCOTUS majority said Alabama's argument for a "community of interest" along the gulf coast was BS.

Tonight, SCOTUS takes a reversal and says that a court-ordered map was not legal because it failed to keep Gulf coast comunity together

[Nicholas Stephanopoulos @ProfNickStephan]

Callais: We’re not changing the test for discriminatory intent claims.

AL district court: Okay, we find discriminatory intent.

SCOTUS tonight: You misread Callais. We’re reversing you.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

I have studied under election law masters and I’ve read thousands of pages of redistricting litigation rulings, briefings, special master reports, and legislative testimony.

Can’t say I’ve ever read anything quite like this.

[Alex Ebert @Alex__Ebert]

Now it’s not just the VRA (statute) subject to Callais’ stringent test, but intentional discrimination (vote dilution) against minority voters.

A state’s preference for how incumbents are handled in a map is judged more important than the 14th Amendment.