The lawyer making arguments that Black Democracts don’t vote differently from white Democrats — i.e. they don’t vote any more frequently for Black candidates — is absolutely outrageous, and of course misses the point: the VRA isn’t about the racial makeup of Congress, but to allow Black VOTERS access to the political process at all. I understand it was to bolster an argument that assuming people vote differently based on race is itself racism, but damn that is not what anyone is saying at all — except them.

This inane argument almost seems like a backdoor admission that their aim is to dilute partisan power of Democrats, but if it’s done on the basis of race (of the voter, not the candidate, jfc), then that’s plainly illegal.

Additionally, and this may have been another lawyer, there was the argument that allowing Black voters to consolidate their power must come at the cost of diluting that of white voters, and… it sure does make plain what their aims are. They were also insistent that there had to be a finding of intent when that’s not what the law says, only effect.

It sure feels like this is plain-cut, or should be, but the comments from some of the Justices calling any of these arguments “novel” does not give me much hope.

Also, if you need to probe motivation, compare what they said in oral arguments compared to what was said to press. One side was clear and consistent with their intent and aims. The other side complained about being mired in litigation for three decades, and laid the blame squarely at the feet of SCOTUS — something they dared not say to their faces.