Isn’t that what Bush v. Gore was supposed to be about, absolutely equal voting rights? Why then defend one who claims that only SOME acts against equal representation need have remedy without prior proof of intent?

The lack of an effect test was designed and remains a catchall for various partisan and racist efforts to create such things as 11 hour waits in black districts but 15 minute waits in white districts in a ‘must win’ state for a certain unprincipled party in the most recent election.

Roberts notation does indeed declare that he is opposed to any ‘test of reality’ when it applies to voting rights for blacks.

BTW, did Roberts join in the mass dissent to Bush v. Gore?

If not, how hypocritical can one alleged judge be?

His predictions, even on his home turf of election law, are almost invariably wrong, and sometimes spectacularly so. Note that this isn’t me taking issue with his opinions, which he’s entitled to hold, but with his expertise, which he holds out as objectively the law.

Further, he seems surprised by the most obvious of things- take the CA Supreme Court’s Proposition 77 ruling, for example. That the Supreme Court was going to do this wasn’t too hard to forsee, and yet it caught him off guard.

Remember kids, until 2000, election law was an awful backwater of legal scholarship. Talent hasn’t filtered into it yet.