Nicholas Stephanopoulos
@profnickstephan.bsky.social
Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Aligning Election Law: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/aligning-election-law-9780197662151.
- More in the weeds, but the plaintiffs say the third Gingles precondition isn't satisfied in CA because minority-preferred candidates often win statewide races. But this analysis is always regional, not statewide, and the plaintiffs offer no more localized data.
November 5, 2025 at 8:08 PM
- More in the weeds, but the plaintiffs say the third Gingles precondition isn't satisfied in CA because minority-preferred candidates often win statewide races. But this analysis is always regional, not statewide, and the plaintiffs offer no more localized data.
- The plaintiffs want CA to return to its 2022 map. But their own argument is that 14 of that map's districts are unlawful racial gerrymanders! So that map is almost as bad, under the plaintiffs' theory, as the new map -- and can't be a valid remedy to any legal problem.
November 5, 2025 at 8:08 PM
- The plaintiffs want CA to return to its 2022 map. But their own argument is that 14 of that map's districts are unlawful racial gerrymanders! So that map is almost as bad, under the plaintiffs' theory, as the new map -- and can't be a valid remedy to any legal problem.
- Where's the plaintiffs' alternative map? CA's obvious defense is that its primary goal was partisan, not racial. Alexander says that, to refute a partisan defense, plaintiffs need a map that achieves the state's partisan aim without fixating on race. So where's their map?
November 5, 2025 at 8:08 PM
- Where's the plaintiffs' alternative map? CA's obvious defense is that its primary goal was partisan, not racial. Alexander says that, to refute a partisan defense, plaintiffs need a map that achieves the state's partisan aim without fixating on race. So where's their map?
2. The SG's proposal would doom Section 2 suits not just in the South but everywhere. That's because there's always SOME political objective a new majority-minority district would compromise. If a state named the right goal, no plaintiff could satisfy the first Gingles prong.
October 24, 2025 at 3:03 PM
2. The SG's proposal would doom Section 2 suits not just in the South but everywhere. That's because there's always SOME political objective a new majority-minority district would compromise. If a state named the right goal, no plaintiff could satisfy the first Gingles prong.
That's what the state often says, but the case law (most recently Milligan) is pretty clear that "race conscious" districts that comply with traditional criteria yet aim to increase minority representation don't trigger strict scrutiny.
October 17, 2025 at 1:33 AM
That's what the state often says, but the case law (most recently Milligan) is pretty clear that "race conscious" districts that comply with traditional criteria yet aim to increase minority representation don't trigger strict scrutiny.
I guess I see (1) whether compliance with a law is a compelling interest as distinct from (2) whether the law itself is constitutional. So, on this view, nothing about a law's constitutionality follows from compliance with the law being a compelling interest (or not).
October 17, 2025 at 1:13 AM
I guess I see (1) whether compliance with a law is a compelling interest as distinct from (2) whether the law itself is constitutional. So, on this view, nothing about a law's constitutionality follows from compliance with the law being a compelling interest (or not).
It's not the death knell for Section 2 because virtually all remedial districts aren't deemed to be motivated primarily by race. They're almost always "race conscious" but not "racially predominant," which the Court says is the line between okay and presumptively not.
October 17, 2025 at 12:37 AM
It's not the death knell for Section 2 because virtually all remedial districts aren't deemed to be motivated primarily by race. They're almost always "race conscious" but not "racially predominant," which the Court says is the line between okay and presumptively not.
In this zone, disputes must be resolved on grounds other than the constitutional text's original meaning. Alignment could be a factor that courts consider in the construction zone, pushing them to further, not to frustrate, this value.
September 18, 2025 at 2:56 PM
In this zone, disputes must be resolved on grounds other than the constitutional text's original meaning. Alignment could be a factor that courts consider in the construction zone, pushing them to further, not to frustrate, this value.