New Episode: Majordoma
The Callais episode is up
The latest episode of Divided Argument, Majordoma, is up:
The Court’s latest Voting Rights Act decision, Louisiana v. Callais, narrows Section 2 in a way that could reshape redistricting, weaken majority-minority districts, and intensify the fight over how race and partisanship interact in elections. … We walk through the statutory text, the long-running collision between the Voting Rights Act and the Court’s racial gerrymandering cases, and the practical consequences for future election-law litigation. … The conversation also covers the Court’s emergency procedural move after judgment, Justice Kagan’s forceful dissent, and the broader question of whether the decision is likely to help one party more than the other in the short run.
Comments welcome!
Is there a petition anywhere to replace Dan with a left-leaning law professor who knows what they are talking about?
Two questions:
1. Other than a very brief comment at the end, your analysis did not mention Purcell relative to this case. On the AO podcast yesterday, Sarah or David mentioned that their view was Purcell didn’t apply to SCOTUS decisions. Why wouldn’t Purcell have prevented map changes post the Calais decision for the 2026 elections?
2. Could you elaborate on the “similarly situated” concept and how that term is defined and how it is applied? David talked about it on AO yesterday too. I came away from his discussion thinking it would be okay for a state to say no people in x city can vote, since all those people are similarly situated. Hard to believe that can be right.