maybe not deliver them, and coerce and pressure those voters, there are so many provisions, it is impossible to name them all, the john lewis bill would give unelected, you an accountable career bureaucrat at justice department the ability to veto almost all election changes, new redistricting maps of state, even changes made by voters, that is an unbelieve able in i want the pub public too understand. it federalizes the voting system. in dc, allows bureaucracy,
much harder. they are gerrymandering and drawing up partisan redistricting maps which is now something that s happening after the census. all those measures and they re doing it without the extra set of eyes and review from the department of justice, which is what the john lewis voting act was going to restore. so when people question, will there be a fair election, will there be an even playing field. these measures have passed and they are going to suppress the vote and make it harder for people to vote. i in florida used to have to register to vote by mail once every eight or ten years. now it s every two years. people don t know that. that s going to affect how many people do that, but even before,
if anything, this really turns up the pressure on the senate to reconsider and to vote on measures currently pending in front of them to protect our elections. these redistricting maps, were they drawn specifically to disenfranchise black voters? i think it s difficult to say that as a matter of fact and hard to avoid that conclusion when you look at how the maps are drawn. the reality is that there is history here, that there are problems with alabama and suppression of black voters. traditionally, the state has not used widespread absentee voting. you ve got to have strictly categorized reasons in order to vote absentee. there is only one day to vote. there s no early voting in alabama, and drive-up, dropoff voting is unheard of here, so over time, it s very difficult to avoid the impression that suppression measures here have been employed. this decision addresses only how the maps have been drawn and
basis that they were likely to succeed, when they go to trial, and prove that those maps are racially discriminatory. and that is a very significant win. and that is something that the supreme court took away by using a procedural double whammy, using the shadow docket, as you mentioned. and then, seemingly they relied on a case that is another shadow docket case, purcell versus gonzalez to suggest that they were too close to the election to make any court ordered changes to the redistricting maps. mind you, we are nine months away from the general elections and four months from the primary elections. so, it is quite difficult to imagine any way in which you can bring a redistricting challenging challenge as quickly as we did and not wind up running afoul of this court invented rule that we were too close to the election. you know, again, they don t have to write in the shadow docket opinion. kavanaugh writing basically sites this purcell principle
succeed, when they go to trial, and prove that those maps are racially discriminatory. and that is a very significant win. and that is something that the supreme court took away by using a procedural double whammy, using the shadow docket, as you mentioned. and then, seemingly they relied on a case that is another shadow docket case, purcell versus gonzalez to suggest that they were too close to the election to make any court ordered changes to the redistricting maps. mind you, we are nine months away from the general elections and four months from the primary elections. so, it is quite difficult to imagine any way in which you can bring a redistricting challenging challenge as quickly as we did and not wind up running afoul of this court invented rule that we were too close to the election. you know, again, they don t have to write in the shadow docket opinion.