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

BumRushDaShow

(171,763 posts)
Fri May 8, 2026, 07:42 AM 23 hrs ago

Supreme court's Voting Rights Act ruling cited misleading data from DoJ

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
Supreme court's Voting Rights Act ruling cited misleading data from DoJ (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 23 hrs ago OP
His mind was already made up................. Lovie777 22 hrs ago #1
He had a conclusion already determined. All he needed was manipulated data Baitball Blogger 21 hrs ago #3
My first thought, too... IthinkThereforeIAM 21 hrs ago #4
John Roberts Lied...........he has been a racists POS since Reagan he lied when he got confirmed turbinetree 21 hrs ago #2
I thought Roberts was W's POS lawyer spewing venom to get the FL recount stopped. GreenWave 20 hrs ago #5
You see, THIS is the scary part. These six FUCKERS can rule their way for ANY reason, and bluestarone 20 hrs ago #6
we can can cancel them dave99 14 hrs ago #19
Racism didn't end, white voters just got lazy and didn't vote in same % Attilatheblond 19 hrs ago #7
You mean trumps DOJ supplied misleading republianmushroom 18 hrs ago #8
GIGO yankee87 18 hrs ago #9
I'm sure the decision was pre-determined, but I'm curious what the numbers would've looked like TheRickles 18 hrs ago #10
Try reading the linked article. There are graphs and plenty of numbers. It's quite damning. TheRickles 17 hrs ago #11
The Guardian "ran the numbers" and their findings are in the article BumRushDaShow 17 hrs ago #12
Very clear results, thanks. TheRickles 17 hrs ago #13
Yeah I saw after I posted because I was taking some time to do screenshots of the plots BumRushDaShow 16 hrs ago #14
No worries. That was me responding to me, BTW. I was a bit hasty in asking for more info. TheRickles 16 hrs ago #15
I know BumRushDaShow 15 hrs ago #16
They don't care...I know I'm snarky, but they don't. The only good news: LeftInTX 15 hrs ago #17
Alito would have found another lie to support his predetermined conclusion: honor 0: lie 1 Augiedog 14 hrs ago #18

Lovie777

(23,564 posts)
1. His mind was already made up.................
Fri May 8, 2026, 07:49 AM
22 hrs ago

so were the other 5. Their goal was to dilute and shut down minority voters, starting the black districts first.

The fight will be long and hard to regain black voter's right for representation again but it's worth it.

Red states have won this battle, but we the people will win the war.

IthinkThereforeIAM

(3,328 posts)
4. My first thought, too...
Fri May 8, 2026, 09:46 AM
21 hrs ago

... so conniving.

"conniving/kəˈnīviNG/Conniving describes someone who is scheming, plotting, and manipulative, typically engaging in secret, dishonest, or crafty behavior for personal gain or to harm others. It suggests a sneaky, shrewd, and devious nature, often associated with con artists, villains, or those looking to get ahead through illicit means"

turbinetree

(27,719 posts)
2. John Roberts Lied...........he has been a racists POS since Reagan he lied when he got confirmed
Fri May 8, 2026, 09:01 AM
21 hrs ago

along with the other 5 maga POS's...................

bluestarone

(22,420 posts)
6. You see, THIS is the scary part. These six FUCKERS can rule their way for ANY reason, and
Fri May 8, 2026, 10:05 AM
20 hrs ago

NOTHING we can do about it. These are what i call their TEST decisions. Look out for what they really want to to us in America. It's coming, that's for sure!!

Attilatheblond

(9,182 posts)
7. Racism didn't end, white voters just got lazy and didn't vote in same %
Fri May 8, 2026, 11:24 AM
19 hrs ago

That's not the fault of black voters and it certainly doesn't show racism is over in the US.

RW justices are always looking for cover to justify their biases and predetermined mindset.

republianmushroom

(22,615 posts)
8. You mean trumps DOJ supplied misleading
Fri May 8, 2026, 11:53 AM
18 hrs ago

information to the SCOTUS. Dam, I'm shocked, shocked by it
But than this is the Roberts court so if follows. And not a damn thing will be done about it.

yankee87

(2,855 posts)
9. GIGO
Fri May 8, 2026, 12:11 PM
18 hrs ago

They could have cited any data, the decision was already a done deal. The only way is to increase the number of justices.

TheRickles

(3,497 posts)
10. I'm sure the decision was pre-determined, but I'm curious what the numbers would've looked like
Fri May 8, 2026, 12:22 PM
18 hrs ago

if the caveats mentioned by BumRush in the last paragraph had been taken into account.

TheRickles

(3,497 posts)
11. Try reading the linked article. There are graphs and plenty of numbers. It's quite damning.
Fri May 8, 2026, 12:50 PM
17 hrs ago

BumRushDaShow

(171,763 posts)
12. The Guardian "ran the numbers" and their findings are in the article
Fri May 8, 2026, 01:08 PM
17 hrs ago

Here were their accompanying plots -





TheRickles

(3,497 posts)
13. Very clear results, thanks.
Fri May 8, 2026, 01:44 PM
17 hrs ago

The commenter who replied just before you made the same point (though without the graphics).

BumRushDaShow

(171,763 posts)
14. Yeah I saw after I posted because I was taking some time to do screenshots of the plots
Fri May 8, 2026, 02:30 PM
16 hrs ago

and then uploading them to an image hosting site to display here, since the article's images are done in layers, and are not directly linkable as the whole image.

TheRickles

(3,497 posts)
15. No worries. That was me responding to me, BTW. I was a bit hasty in asking for more info.
Fri May 8, 2026, 02:44 PM
16 hrs ago

Your thoroughness is always appreciated.

BumRushDaShow

(171,763 posts)
16. I know
Fri May 8, 2026, 03:01 PM
15 hrs ago

But I do try to bring some "value" to LBN OPs, including links to press releases, court filings, etc, and those plots were definitely worth the effort to visualize how egregious this ruling was based on their distorted data!

LeftInTX

(34,807 posts)
17. They don't care...I know I'm snarky, but they don't. The only good news:
Fri May 8, 2026, 03:29 PM
15 hrs ago

Maybe another court in a distant galaxy, will revisit the decision. Until then, they don't give a shit whether they had bad data. They probably knew it.

I just remember that thing with Alito and that crazy old stuff about abortion that had nothing to do with the United States. I can't even remember what he was quoting, but he seemed to be off his rocker.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme court's Voting Ri...