Data in justice department filing quoted by Samuel Alito in his opinion relied on unusual methodology, a Guardian analysis has found

The claims Samuel Alito, a supreme court justice, made about voter turnout in Louisiana in a landmark Voting Rights Act case were based on a misleading data analysis, a Guardian review has found.

In his opinion gutting section 2 of the Voting Rights Act last week, Alito said that Black voter turnout had exceeded white voter turnout in two of the five most recent presidential elections, both nationally and in Louisiana. Alito’s claim was copied almost verbatim from a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the justice department. It was a critical data point Alito used to make the argument that the kind of discrimination that once made the Voting Rights Act necessary no longer exists.

But a review of turnout and racial data in Louisiana reveals that assertion relies on an unusual methodology. The justice department brief that Alito cited calculated Black and white voter turnout in Louisiana as a proportion of the total population of each racial group over the age of 18. Such an approach is not preferred by experts in calculating statewide turnout because the general over-18 population may include non-citizens, people with felony convictions and others who cannot legally vote.But it does yield Alito’s conclusion that Black voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in Louisiana.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    17 days ago

    It was a critical data point Alito used to make the argument that the kind of discrimination that once made the Voting Rights Act necessary no longer exists.

    I’m sorry, when did the necessity of a law become the new litmus test for constitutionality?

  • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    17 days ago

    In all seriousness, like what is going to happen when no one trusts the courts… like they rule puppies are illegal and people just will still have puppies. Make a rule that ice cream isn’t allowed to be consumed on Sundays and people just do it.

    If the courts are a joke, then so are the rules?

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      I don’t think anyone will like what happens if even the illusion of a functional system of laws is well and truly swept away. When enough people believe that a system is working, even if it isn’t working but they believe that it is, then life can more or less continue in a vaguely tolerable fashion. When that belief is taken away, things tend to get weird.

      Edit: For the record, I think that most lower class and an ever-increasing number of middle class people already live in that reality. I think it’s the people with the most to lose who will find out just how bad it can get if the imaginary glue holding society together evaporates away in a puff of searing populist anger.

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    17 days ago

    This is the court that cited a 17th century bullshit about quickening like they were sucking Medieval Highlander dick for justification on Dobbs, and then in the same breath refused to also acknowledge that terminating pregnancy before Highlander There Can Be Only One, was common and accepted practice.

    These Conservative political activist judges don’t care about being consistent or data while they’re passing their conservative agenda from the bench.

  • Heydo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    17 days ago

    So black voter turnout was highest in 2012…

    Hmm 🤔 I wonder why that may have happened???