What we're witnessing right now in the southern states controlled by Republicans is just a frenzy

of activity to try to draw new congressional districts before the 2026 election.

And sure, this was all kicked off by the Kaleigh decision, the Supreme Court case that gutted

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

But something more profound is going on.

Because anyone who has watched the Supreme Court over the last, oh, I don't know, decade or so,

has noticed that it oftentimes puts pro-democracy victories on hold.

Right?

It comes up with an excuse that says it's too close to the election. It's going to cause confusion. It's going to cause chaos. And yet, here we are. And in the middle of voting in Louisiana, and I can go down the list of other states, the Supreme Court is green lighting on a fast track permission for all of these states to redistrict.

So what's going on here? Well, it all boils down to a made-up legal doctrine called Purcell.

You may have heard of this before. It is oftentimes cited for the proposition that courts should

not change election rules close to elections, because

if they do that, they run the risk of confusing voters, they run the risk of putting burdens

on election officials. I mean, in some conceptual sense, this makes sense. But there are two

problems. First, it's entirely made up. Congress didn't say there needed to be

this doctrine. States have not said there needs to be this doctrine. The Constitution doesn't

demand it. No, this is entirely a made-up legal fiction by the Supreme Court. And so that's

the first problem. The second, though, is how it's been

implemented, or shall we say how it's been wielded? Because it seems over and over again,

if you are a set of black voters or Democrats and you are trying to improve voting rights

for an election, you're told to wait, it's too

close to the election, maybe next cycle. But if you're a Republican or you are representing

...