If you hear no audio, it's because they are starting a few minutes late. They seem to do that consistently :)

Here we go, open statements. The lady defending the VRA side giving her statements seems very nervous (a normal thing I would expect doing this sort of thing in front of the Supreme Court). She now takes questions first. Arguing for precedent here.

Justice Thomas first: asking about Robinson (Alabama case). Making a point about that case was more on the merits of standing and proceedings, not the VRA itself. The counsel agrees with Thomas, confirming his point.

Roberts now: Seems to be attacking the counsel's focus on precedent and stare decisis. He is also saying that the Alabama case (Allen v. Milligan, sorry the previous comment was wrong on the title)

Barrett and now Alito are also questioning what Milligan (the actual Alabama case from 2022). They seems to be saying "that was a different case looking at specific things to Alabama's process for drawing a map" It seems like the conservatives are trying to separate the cases

Alito really focusing on race being used in drawing of maps. Kavanaugh is now asking a question. Directly to Section 2 of the VRA

Roberts now questioning: "what's the proper size of race in politics?" especially when it comes to map drawing. The counsel here (Nelson) is saying that race can't be a HUGE factor but it should still be kept as a minor factor to protect voters. Nelson (counsel) is now

Kavanaugh jumps in and says "race based remedies are permissible for a certain amount of time, but they are not indefinite and should have an endpoint." He asks here "what is the time limit?" Clearly Kavanaugh is consider if now is the time to get rid of this Section 2 of the

NOW Barrett asks a question: She asks a question related to indefinitely using race and if congress went above and beyond the 15th amendment with the VRA as a "remedy" for race issues. This gets into more legalize then I understand without research, so I can't speak more to

Ok NOW this is KBJ talking...attempting to make Section 2 NOT a remedy. Therefore doesn't need a time limit. The discussion right now is a fight between is Section 2 of the VRA needs to have a time limit or not. KBJ is helping the counsel (Nelson) right now make her case,

Nelson is really trying to keep options open for keeping some sort of the Section 2 of the VRA open...even saying that directly to the justices. They are trying to cut their losses it seems if they don't win, they at least get a smaller loss.

Alito now doing follow up questions: Discussing maps (@erickson_68 would love this), talking about compactness and packing, etc. Also "illustrative map" is a drinking bingo word for these arguments LOL

@erickson_68 Sotomayor now speaking: Wants to focus on the unconstitutionality of this case, since it was reheard on those grounds. Nelson talking about SFFA (Supreme Court case: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard) and why that is different from this case. Sotomayor is encouraging

@erickson_68 Kagan now asking about the real outcomes if the Sec 2 of the VRA was eliminated: Nelson answers that it would be catastrophic for black Americans in the south. Just her opinion and she is not really saying why it would be bad for them, other than it wouldn't give them an "equal

@erickson_68 Gorsuch now: Asking about if a map could be used that intentionally discriminated on the basis of race. "Is it acceptable for a court to intentionally discriminate on the basis of race?" Nelson answers: "not in those words". In other words yes but only a little :)

@erickson_68 Kavanaugh jumps on the discrimination word. He says that this is a "sticking word" and therefore an important one. Kavanaugh says "Deferring to congress is NOT what we are supposed to do" when deciding how long race should be used to discriminate (temporal remedy argument

Barrett now on: Following up on 14th amendment and Robinson case. She's really focusing on race and can it be used as a compelling interest in map drawing. KBJ comes in to try to make the point about the compelling interest is to "create an open and equal" electoral process.

Ok now they are switching counsels. Louisiana counsel is now on board. Main argument: racial measures are unconstitutional and it's time to end this. Going after precedent and stereotypes that Sec 2 of the VRA perpetuates: "A Black voter simply because he is black, votes the

Thomas now: What is the difference between this case and the prior ones we have heard? Louisiana counsel (don't have his name yet) believes that this is different due to the race based measures. Sec 2 of the VRA is forcing the state to draw maps based on race and that is why

Kagan trying to separate from Shelby decision (previous VRA case in 2013). Also attacking the idea that Sec 2 of the VRA is direct discrimination rather than "effect discrimination" (meaning if the outcomes/effects are not discriminatory then it's legal). Kagan saying that

Sotomayor is now attacking the plaintiff (a "white voter" in a black district) and saying why is his race being used here but race can't be used to remedy things for black people. Thomas is now back on: His point is "would the maps that Louisiana have currently be used if

Alito: "can I bring up a few factual points" LOL!!! He is bringing the facts to undo the liberals arguments. Alito and Aguinaga (Louisiana Counsel) are basically agreeing with each other that the state DID NOT discriminate with their maps. So there is not racial harm being

Sotomayor is up again, trying to undercut Alito's point. She is basically trying to again state that harm is being done racial, to black voters, by the state of Louisiana using the maps that they would have wanted to use.

Sotomayor keeps going, and now Kagan is on again, so a quick summary here: Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are siding to gut Sec 2 of the VRA Kagan, Sotomayor and KBJ are favoring keeping it. The liberals have talked A LOT, trying to demonstrate that race is still needed to

Kavanaugh now on: Focusing on why a new test for the Sec 2 of the VRA is practical or not practical. Meaning, should they just "change" the Sec 2 of the VRA vs getting rid of it completely. This is important. They are talking about the nuances of increased VRA litigation if

Kavanaugh is allowing Aguinaga to counter the liberals arguments that harm is being done by the state of Louisiana. Aguinaga says: the political process is the political process. Essentially if Louisiana wants to Gerrymander then they risk losing seats, but that's on them and

Barrett now on: focusing on use of race in the map drawing process. Again a technical question. She seems to really be in the weeds here, not sure how that can be read about her vote. Barrett does seem to think that Sec 2 of the VRA has been used beyond what it was intended.

KBJ is now really hammering race and the fact that it is about "unequal opportunity for black voters" and she believes it is still going on. She's really attacking Aguinaga right now, she's getting very animated. She wants the state to say that they have a compelling interest

Ok Louisiana is now off. Now a second counsel is up on the "get rid of the VRA" side of things. Edward Greim is the counsel now.

Thomas: Questions related to the fact that the state of Louisiana had to consider race in their political process due to prior legal precedent. Thomas is again making a point that current legal precedent FORCED the state to use race as a consideration in a

Kagan: countering Greim's statement that their is stereotyping going on with black voters. Greim responds by saying that the remedy is the stereotype (Sec 2 considerations that states must use). He is saying that all voters can vote for who they want, but that is a political

Kagan and KBJ (again jumping in here), are really hammering Sec 2 being a remedy that is still needed due to issues on the ground still being discriminatory for blacks. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch have no more questions. Sotomayor is back on, again jumping on the stereotyping

A funny moment as Roberts is trying to quarterback for time, giving the microphone back to Kagan. The liberals are really hammering their points. I said this yesterday, depending on how forceful they were it shows their hand in how concerned they are for this case. It seems to

KBJ is on AGAIN. She is asking way too many questions and I think she is likely to turn off other justices at this point. She wants to keep Section 2, we get it! Please end this Roberts!!

Thank goodness it is now over. Ok one more counsel change: didn't get the guys name, I'll try to get it. Thomas: Ask a question of " can we decouple race versus how different races vote" Counsel response: Maps drawing should only be a political process not a race one.

Counsel now (Principal deputy SG Hashim Mooppa) and Sotomayor are getting into it about how race in Sec 2 (and compelling interest) is being over used here. Mooppa (counsel) believes that states are being forced by Sec 2 to use race and therefore prior supreme court precedent

We are winding down here, the liberals still going after precedent. They are trying to make two arguments: 1) This case isn't connected to other prior ones based on race and 2) prior supreme court precedent should be continued due to still ongoing harm to minority (black)

Roberts is now asking a question! Asking about the government's position about consistency with prior cases (Milligan especially). Counsel wants racial predominance to be gone so that states don't need to consider that when drawing maps. Ergo, Courts shouldn't force race on

Alito now on, we know where he stands and he's just countering the liberals at this point. The key decision makers will be Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts. I don't know if we get more questions after Alito is done.

Mooppa (Counsel) and Alito have a discussion in agreement that race based decisions in government is dumb and shouldn't happen. Alito focuses on "knowing" legislature's intention is extremely hard and therefore why should courts not be in that decision making process.

Gorsuch now focusing on the politics of drawing maps and what states can/can't do. Can cohesion or compactness be challenged in courts? Predominance of race. Etc. Gorsuch is making a point that there are so many small details that courts can get stuck in, so why another test

Kavanaugh is now back on (we are going on 2.5 hours here, holy crap). Focusing on predominance of race is state's decisions to make maps. Mooppa is arguing that states need to stop race based predominance in map drawing. Kavanaugh thinks the new thought in Mooppa's brief is

Barrett now on: Clarifying if Mooppa would want a modification of Gingles (40 year old precedent). Mooppa wants "clarification on this precedent when i comes to map drawing". It seems like a modification for how Sec 2 being applied is where this is going. KBJ back on,

Alright, rebuttal by Nelson allowed now: so we got some time left. This was WAY longer than I was expecting!! I got 30 more minutes before I got to log off!

Nelson: "my opponents want to make this about politics but this is about race" and protecting minorities. The issue here is that race is being taken into account, which is where conservatives have an issue with how Sec 2 is being applied. Are black voters being denied a

Roberts ends it...this thread is also done!

@earlyvotedata imagine if we just ditched race entirely in these maps and went for vibes instead; how would that change the dynamics?

@earlyvotedata It's a race to the bottom between Kentanji Brown and herself.

@earlyvotedata Jorge Aguina, the most White name ever. Thanks for your amazing insights Sotomayor.

@earlyvotedata 🙏 🙏 🙏

@earlyvotedata CA ET Nerd, I 100 percent agree with Justice Thomas. Race, religion, nationality should have nothing to do with governance and the decision made.

@earlyvotedata Thank you for this coverage. Very interesting.