The Alito Stay of the Texas Redistricting Case and the Bankruptcy of the Supreme Court

Samuel Alito's outrageous but predictable stay of an appeals court decision invalidating the infamous Texas redistricting map is yet another blot on this wretched Court's sorry record, especially in the area of voting rights. This podcast explores the decision in the context of past decisions gutting one portion after another of the Voting Rights Act. It demonstrates that radical reform of the Court is vital, perhaps job 1A along with neutering Citizens United, when the Democrats regain control of government.

Transcript

0:31

Welcome back to America's Fractured Politics. Today we explore one of the most pivotal and controversial judicial decisions shaking American democracy today. This is the Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alitos, unexpected and deeply contested emergency stay on the appeals court ruling that invalidated Texas' 2025 Congressional redistricting map. A map found to be illegally, racially gerrymandered. And designed to suppress minority voting power. Texas has been ground zero for some of the fiercest battles over representation and voting rights for decades. The 2025 redistricting plan crafted by the Republican dominated Texas legislature emerged in intense political pressure and national scrutiny prompted by Donald Trump's push to expand GOP control in the House of representatives. Texas Republicans authored a map that sought to secure five additional congressional seats in their favor. What makes this map stand out and ultimately fail in court is the extent to which race was used as a primary tool to draw district lines fragmenting, minority voting blocks, and rendering their voices less effective. The Federal Appeals Court reviewing this redistricting map handed down a thorough and meticulously reasoned 160 page decision. Concluding that the map was a blatant racial gerrymander, the court cited overwhelming evidence, including an internal Department of Justice memo, which unequivocally revealed that race was the central factor in defining the key districts. Several districts, including those in Houston and Fort Worth, were described as unconstitutional coalition districts essentially built to weaken the cohesive electoral strength. Of black and Latino voters who historically elect democratic candidates. The appeals court's ruling was greeted with praise from civil rights leaders and voting rights advocates who lauded the decision as a critical enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, A law designed explicitly to prevent racial discrimination and voting practices. The ruling ordered the map barred from use in the upcoming 2026 elections, mandating the state to revert to the 2021 maps for the time being. However, justice Samuel Alito issued an emergency stay mere hours after Texas filed its petition with the US Supreme Court without any detailed explanation or public justification. Alito stay froze. The appeals court ruling allowing Texas to proceed with the map for the imminent midterm elections. This intervention struck many as overtly political, effectively granting a reprieve to an election map that was struck down for undermining minority voting power. Texas Governor Greg Abbott hailed the stay as a necessary step to maintain election stability in certainty amid a looming deadline. Republican officials argued that campaigns and candidates had already begun preparations under the new map. And the reversing course weeks before filing deadlines would produce chaos. Meanwhile, democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett and other critics condemned the state as a dangerous blow devoting rights and racial justice. Doggett stated plainly, this state denies voters their lawful right to equal representation and condones racial discrimination by design. This situation shines a glaring spotlight on the trajectory and legacy of the Roberts Court. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts since 2005. The court's jurisprudence over the past two decades has consistently narrowed the scope of federal protections for voting rights, systemically dismantling the legal framework that had provided safeguards against racial and partisan gerrymandering. The watershed moment came with the 2013 Shelby County V Holder decision in which the Roberts Court invalidated the voting right act. Pre-clearance formula, a mechanism requiring certain states, including Texas, to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws or district boundaries. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority argued that the coverage formula was outdated and no longer justified, effectively neutering this proactive enforcement tool. This decision unleashed a wave of restrictive state voting laws and redistricting efforts principally targeting minority voters with Texas among the most aggressive. The Department of Justice and Civil Rights Groups warned of the resurgence of voter suppression efforts, but the court's ruling left federal oversight largely toothless. In subsequent cases, the Roberts Court further eroded voting rights protections. The 2019 RECHO versus common cost decision, declared partisan gerrymandering claims non justiciable, removing the judiciary from policing blatant political manipulation of district maps. This abdication handed redistricting authority fully to often partisan state legislatures. In the 2021 Benevich versus Democratic National Committee ruling, the court narrowed section two of the Voting Rights Acts protections, making it harder for plaintiffs to challenge voting restrictions that disproportionately affect minority voters. The justices introduced rigid standards requiring clear evidence of discriminatory intent, a high bar that undermines present day protections against subtle but systemic voter suppression. Justice Alito has been a staunch ally within the conservative block of the Roberts Court, often siding with rulings that limit the reach of voting rights laws, and empower partisan and racial gerrymanders. His recent stay in Texas continues this pattern offering judicial cover for political actors seeking to entrench power through legal manipulation. The Texas redistricting fight itself is steeped in strategic political calculations. The original 2021 maps protected by the now dismantled pre-clearance requirement, had already delivered large majorities to Republicans in statewide and congressional races. However, population growth and court rulings compelled the 2025 mid decade redistricting effort. Under pressure from Trump and led by Governor Abbott, Texas pushed a rush special legislative obsession to redraw the map with the explicit intent of increasing Republican seats. Despite ongoing lawsuits alleging racial gerrymandering, records revealed that the legislature often claimed the process was race blind. The controversy also highlights conflicting legal interpretations within lower courts on coalition districts and what constitutes racial gerrymandering. The fifth US Court of Appeals has made rulings that complicate protections from minority voters by limiting recognition of coalition districts under the Voting Rights Act, setting up a clash with other circuit courts and increasing the Supreme Court's significance in settling the issue. Alitos stay effectively allows Texas to conduct candidate filings, primaries in the general election. Under this disputed map, minority voters face the prospect of diminished political power, their electrical districts fractured and their preferred candidates. At disadvantage, the state prolongs legal uncertainty and undermines voter confidence. Leaving many to question the impartiality and legitimacy of judicial processes meant to safeguard democracy. Legal scholars and civil rights leaders warned that the stakes extend nationally. The redistricting Texas could shape the balance of power and the US house with as many as five seats flipped to Republican control. The pattern of judicial decisions from the Roberts court signals a toleration, if not encouragement. Have tactics that threaten the principle of one person, one vote. The political ramifications are immense, particularly as the nation faces polarized elections with rising concerns about voter suppression. The court's ruling in Alito stay underscore how the judiciary can either be a guardian or an obstacle to fair representation while the Roberts Court justifies its decisions under doctrine of state sovereignty and limited judicial intervention. Critics argue that this formalism ignores persistent racial discrimination and entrenches systemic inequalities. The rollback of foundational protections transforms the court into a political actor shaping electoral outcomes. Civic engagement, legal advocacy and legislative reform remain vital in this fraud environment, encouraging voter participation, challenging discriminatory laws in court. And pushing for robust federal voting protections like the proposed John Lewis Voting Rights advancement Act are critical steps forward. The Texas Redistricting Saga punctuated by Alito stay serves as a defining case, illustrating the fragility of voting rights in the current judicial and political landscape, the ongoing struggle over racial justice in elections, and the urgent need for vigilance and activism to protect democratic ideals. This not only sheds light on the specifics of the Texas case, but situates it within decades of evolving jurisprudence and political conflict over voting rights, illustrating the challenges facing American democracy today. What I'm curious about is what excuse the court will use to invalidate the voter's decision in California that will be telling. Change must come in a new Democratic administration. The Democrats need to dismantle this corrupt court retroactive term limits, ethics rules with teeth, impeachment, proceedings against Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Comey for lying to Congress during their confirmation hearings and expanding the court to 13 justices, one for every federal court. Our solutions, this is the only way we can restore the independence of the judiciary. As long as Maddens remain as they are, we are at risk as a functioning democratic republic. This has been America's fractured politics. Keep the faith, and most of all, keep fighting for what's right. Change comes with collective action, and that means all of us. Until next time, this is Mark Mansour.