Why Is John Roberts in a Rush All of a Sudden?

"Over his two decades on the Supreme Court, United States Chief Justice John Roberts had consistently played the long game when it comes to the court's weakening of voting rights. That was until the past few weeks. With a series of major upheavals in the past month alone, Roberts has signaled that he is shifting to a two-minute offense. This change of velocity, heralded by rulings relating to Louisiana's and Alabama's redistricting, threatens to continually upend American elections and create incentives for maximum partisan warfare at exactly the wrong time."

"When Roberts was a 26-year-old staffer in the Reagan administration in 1982, he led the charge against Congress expanding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to give minority voters a better chance to elect their candidates of choice to Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies. He believed that the new Section 2 would lead to proportional representation, rather than something more akin to a winner-take-all system, and strongly opposed what he termed racial quotas. He lost that battle over the scope of Section 2 when Congress passed the 1982 VRA amendments. But Roberts bode his time."

"By 2006, when Congress on a bipartisan basis renewed the VRA yet again, Roberts had already been named chief justice by President George W. Bush. Voting rights opponents immediately challenged that part of the 2006 VRA renewal keeping in place for another 25 years Section 5 of the act, which required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get federal appro"

A newsletter highlights under-the-radar legal developments affecting elections and voting rights. Chief Justice John Roberts previously pursued a long-term strategy in voting and election cases, including opposition to expanding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982. After losing that battle, Roberts later showed patience in subsequent voting-rights disputes. In 2006, after being named chief justice, he faced challenges to the Voting Rights Act renewal, including Section 5’s preclearance requirement for jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination. The recent period includes major upheavals tied to Louisiana and Alabama redistricting rulings. These decisions suggest a shift toward rapid, frequent disruption of election processes, potentially encouraging maximum partisan warfare at a critical time.

Read at Slate Magazine