David Daley NYT oped:

President Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Texas Republicans have reignited the gerrymandering wars. The brazen power grab in Texas pushed Democrats to start their own efforts to unravel independent commissions established by voters, and now it’s threatening to tilt the whole country into chaos.

Mr. Trump and his G.O.P. allies are surely the instigators, but the true architect of this mess, the person who bears as much or more responsibility for it, is Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative Supreme Court. Over several years of rulings, this court has effectively rolled back laws that had for generations protected the right to vote.

The current frenzy is just the latest example of the most antidemocratic feature of American politics in 2025. It’s the toxic combination of the conservative Supreme Court majority and a political party that believes longstanding norms are for suckers and that lacks any commitment to fair play and majority rule.

Since he joined Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department in 1981 as a young foot soldier in the nascent conservative legal movement, Chief Justice Roberts has pursued the patient, steady bleeding of the Voting Rights Act. In 2013, he wrote the 5-to-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder that effectively ended preclearance, the Voting Rights Act’s most effective enforcement mechanism, and liberated states, many clustered in the South, from federal oversight of legislative maps…

Listen here.

I’ve written about two big election stories this week, the newly ignited redistricting wars starting in Texas and the Supreme Court’s strong signal that it could kill off the Voting Rights Act Section 2 by next June. Judged by my conversations with those in the media, Texas redistricting is the bigger story, but I think the VRA is—especially coming on the 60th anniversary of the passage of the Act.

It’s not surprising that the media is more attracted to the Texas story. It happens right now with great visuals of fleeing legislators and threats to bring in the FBI, and Democratic governors vowing to engage in tit-for-tat warfare. The harms to democracy are easy for everyone to see.

But when the Supreme Court acts, it’s very hard to make exciting for the public. A cryptic briefing order issued at the start of a summer weekend does not make good visuals. You don’t get sound bites from Justices Alito and Sotomayor. The action will take place in dense, technical briefs, over months.

So when the Supreme Court kills another aspect of democracy and does it with slow poison, it is much harder to get the public to pay attention. But the lasting cost to our democracy is likely to be far greater than the redistricting skirmishes happening in prime time.

You can watch at this link:

Or read the transcript.

I have written this piece for MSNBC Opinion. It begins:

A sudden war over redistricting has broken out in Texas and looks to spread across the country, with California, New York and elsewhere considering tit-for-tat Democratic partisan gerrymanders to negate the Republican hardball in Texas. Congress, rather than the courts, is in the best position to stop the upcoming race to the bottom. But even though it’s in everyone’s interest that Congress act, don’t hold your breath….

It is possible the courts will block some of these gerrymanders if it can be shown, for example, that they violate the Voting Rights Act. But the Supreme Court just signaled that it may further weaken or kill Voting Rights Act claims in redistricting cases. With that red flag, and with the court’s decision to allow unlimited partisan gerrymandering, the courts are not likely to get the country out of this vicious cycle.

Congress can stop the madness at any point. The Constitution gives Congress the power in Article I to “make” or “alter” state rules for running congressional elections, including redistricting. Congress could outlaw mid-decade redistricting, require the use of commissions, or set a standard barring the most egregious partisan gerrymanders.

In the current polarized atmosphere in Congress, and with Trump (who would have to sign such legislation) looking to impose “maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time” to preserve Republican power, a bipartisan deal to avoid a redistricting war seems most unlikely. But as the Cold War taught us, détente is better than mutually assured destruction for all the parties. Those who suffer the most are the voters, who should not be packed in or cracked out of districts simply because their party is in the minority.

I have written this piece for Slate. It begins:

Reading the tea leaves from cryptic Supreme Court orders can be perilous business because the justices are not bound by the questions they ask at oral argument, the offhand comments they make at a judicial conference, or even their monumental “shadow docket” rulings on emergency petitions that have become all too common. But a technical briefing order in a long pending case out of Louisiana, posted on the Supreme Court’s website after 5 p.m. on a Friday in August, was ominous. The order was likely intended to obscure that the court is ready to consider striking down the last remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2. Such a monumental ruling, likely not coming until June 2026, would change the nature of congressional, state, and local elections, all across the country, and likely stir major civil rights protests as the midterm election season heats up….

We waited weeks for the court to issue its rescheduling order and when it came this past Friday it was a doozy. The court pointed specifically to a set of pages in plaintiffs’ brief which argue that Section 2 is unconstitutional, at least as applied in this case, and that the Voting Rights Act cannot serve as a compelling interest to defeat a racial gerrymandering claim when race predominates. “The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question raised [in that brief]: Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.”

Although the court’s order did not explicitly mention Section 2 or even the Voting Rights Act more generally—unquestionably to obscure things further—there is no doubting what’s going on here. The court is asking the parties to consider whether Louisiana’s compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by drawing a second majority-minority district—as the earlier Ardoin case seemed to require—was unconstitutional under a view of the Constitution as requiring colorblindness.

If the Supreme Court moves forward with this interpretation it would be a sea change to voting rights law. A reading of the Constitution as forbidding race-conscious districting as mandated by Congress to deal with centuries of race discrimination in voting is at odds with the text of the Constitution, with the powers granted directly to Congress to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and with numerous precedents of the Supreme Court itself. It would end what has been the most successful way that Black and other minority voters have gotten fair representation in Congress, state legislatures and in local bodies. It would be an earthquake in politics and make our legislative bodies whiter and our protection for minority voters greatly diminished. Even if the court less drastically says that Section 2 could not be used to require the second congressional district in this case, such a superficially more minimal ruling would mean the quick unraveling of most Section 2 districts because if the facts in Louisiana don’t justify drawing a second district, most other Section 2 claims would fail too….

Court conservatives likely thought teeing up the issue of overruling Section 2 on a hot summer weekend would avoid public notice. But that’s a short term strategy. Come next June, any decision to strike down what’s left of the Voting Rights Act could kick off the start of a new civil rights movement and more serious talk of Supreme Court reform in the midst of crucially important midterm elections. A court fundamentally hostile to the rights of voters places the court increasingly at odds with democracy itself.