Black lawmakers decry supreme court voting decision: 'We're going backwards'

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Guardian

Wed 29 Apr 2026 13.56 EDT
Last modified on Wed 29 Apr 2026 23.20 EDT


The lawmakers who represent Alabama’s two Black congressional districts, who are now at risk of losing their seats after the supreme court effectively decimated the Voting Rights Act, said the decision sends the US “backwards”. The 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republicans to eliminate majority-minority congressional districts across the south, and representatives Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures stand in the crosshairs.

“People in my home town fought, braved, died, marched for the right of all Americans to vote,” Sewell, who represents Alabama’s seventh congressional district, said shortly before Wednesday’s decision. “And I know I wouldn’t be here, were it not for the Voting Rights Act. I mean, actually, all Black elected officials. It’s pretty frightening to think that on our collective watch, we’re going backwards and not forwards.”

Figures, who represents Alabama’s newly drawn second congressional district, said the ruling threatens far more than the seats currently held by Black members of Congress. “The impact will be great,” he said in an interview before the decision, anticipating that the court would weaken the landmark voting law. “At the end of the day, the Voting Rights Act is about fairness. It’s about having the opportunity to elect members of Congress of your choice, and not have the district lines drawn in a way that inhibits the ability of a significant racial group to have an impact in the outcome of an election.”

In a ruling split along ideological lines, the supreme court affirmed that Louisiana’s congressional maps violated the equal protection clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for four decades had been used to challenge electoral maps producing racially discriminatory results, does not require states to draw majority-minority districts. Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the decision effectively eviscerates the law.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/black-lawmakers-supreme-court-voting-rights-ruling

[marble falls]

1. Next election we all have to turn out and vote our interests. Correction: EVERY election, dog catcher up ...

... we all need to vote our interests: equal rights, child care, national health care ......

[Walleye]

2. If the Republicans put half this much effort into improving the lives of Americans, they wouldn't need to cheat

[PatSeg]

3. We've been "going backwards" for quite some time

Now it is accelerating at an alarming rate.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. No taxation without equal representation.

Seems like this one is a no brainer. They are going to lose. They only think they're going to prevail because they don't see minority groups as equal to whites in this country.

[70sEraVet]

5. White robes under those black robes?

Just HOW far back are they planning to push us?

[Clouds Passing]

6. White robes with pointy hats

[walkingman]

7. Deja vu

The SCOTUS ruling yesterday reminds me of HS in 1966 when we had a visit from MLK - 60 years later we are moving in that direction again.

[Miguelito Loveless]

8. Expand the court

to one justice per circuit court.

Impeach Roberts, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito for corruption, perjury, and suborning insurrection.

[republianmushroom]

9. Yup, back to the days of Jim Crow.

[angrychair]

10. At this pace

By the end of this administration the only people that will still have rights will be white male hetrosexual Christian landowners who are worth more than a billion dollars. Just as God intended.

[patphil]

11. 5 of the 6 republican SC justices are white, and the 6th, Clarence Thomas, might as well be.

His only concern is enriching himself through his position on the court, so he takes lavish gifts and votes like the other 5.

[BradBo]

12. Black folks better wake up. Trumps got 2.5 years to destroy them.

[pat_k]

13. Freedom to Vote Act 2027. End partisan gerrymandering!!! So many top priorities, but that must be up there.

What the Freedom to Vote Act Would Do
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-act

Related:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained

From Gemini:

While the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot strike down maps based on partisan bias, it acknowledged that Congress has the authority to regulate this area under the Constitution, including passing acts like the Freedom to Vote Act.

And if you have Republican Senators that aren't up for election in 2027, now is the time to mount a campaign to build the political will to pressure them to get on board with the Freedom to Vote Act or equivalent bill ending partisan gerrymandering in 2027. It is never too early to see what sort of ball you can get rolling.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive

Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.

Why John Roberts’ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is clearly aware of public perceptions related to the high court, though he apparently wants Americans to see him and fellow justices as above the political fray. The Associated Press reported on his latest public remarks:

“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” he said. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”

His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.

As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not “part of the political process … and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.”.....

Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as “political actors”? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.

But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as “political actors” is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts’ remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.”....

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, “Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy.” Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.

The tarnishing of the Supreme Court — its credibility, its integrity and its reputation — has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, that’s their right, but if they want to help restore the institution’s standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Court’s problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.

Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.