Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

BumRushDaShow

(171,828 posts)
Fri May 8, 2026, 07:42 AM Friday

Supreme court's Voting Rights Act ruling cited misleading data from DoJ [View all]

Source: The Guardian

Fri 8 May 2026 07.00 EDT
Last modified on Fri 8 May 2026 07.01 EDT


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.

“Vast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South, where many Section 2 suits arise,” Alito wrote in a majority opinion in the case, which concerned Louisiana’s congressional map, joined by the five other conservative justices on the court. “Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent Presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana.”

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.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/08/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-misleading-data-doj



Of course they did. Racists will do everything they can to justify their racist actions because they don't want to be called out as racist.

And some are naive to claim that they "don't have a racist bone in their body", carefully omitting their hearts and brains where the hate resides.

And regarding this -

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.


IOW, the calculation SHOULD BE using the number of voters who DID vote out of the total population of ELIGIBLE voters over 18 versus the number of voters who DID vote out of a TOTAL population over 18. That's because the prisons are loaded with (often-over charged) black felons as well as other felons who cannot vote, along with non-citizens who still get counted in census/population estimates.
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
His mind was already made up................. Lovie777 Friday #1
He had a conclusion already determined. All he needed was manipulated data Baitball Blogger Friday #3
My first thought, too... IthinkThereforeIAM Friday #4
John Roberts Lied...........he has been a racists POS since Reagan he lied when he got confirmed turbinetree Friday #2
I thought Roberts was W's POS lawyer spewing venom to get the FL recount stopped. GreenWave Friday #5
You see, THIS is the scary part. These six FUCKERS can rule their way for ANY reason, and bluestarone Friday #6
we can can cancel them dave99 Friday #19
Racism didn't end, white voters just got lazy and didn't vote in same % Attilatheblond Friday #7
You mean trumps DOJ supplied misleading republianmushroom Friday #8
GIGO yankee87 Friday #9
I'm sure the decision was pre-determined, but I'm curious what the numbers would've looked like TheRickles Friday #10
Try reading the linked article. There are graphs and plenty of numbers. It's quite damning. TheRickles Friday #11
The Guardian "ran the numbers" and their findings are in the article BumRushDaShow Friday #12
Very clear results, thanks. TheRickles Friday #13
Yeah I saw after I posted because I was taking some time to do screenshots of the plots BumRushDaShow Friday #14
No worries. That was me responding to me, BTW. I was a bit hasty in asking for more info. TheRickles Friday #15
I know BumRushDaShow Friday #16
They don't care...I know I'm snarky, but they don't. The only good news: LeftInTX Friday #17
Alito would have found another lie to support his predetermined conclusion: honor 0: lie 1 Augiedog Friday #18
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme court's Voting Ri...