Nicholas Stephanopoulos

1.7K posts

Nicholas Stephanopoulos banner
Nicholas Stephanopoulos

Nicholas Stephanopoulos

@ProfNickStephan

Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. https://t.co/HoBmvjhR1U

Cambridge, MA Katılım Nisan 2011
2.1K Takip Edilen3.8K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
🚨Today is publication day for my book, "Aligning Election Law"! The book argues that promoting alignment between governmental outputs and popular preferences should be an overarching goal of election law. You can buy the book at the link below. global.oup.com/academic/produ…
English
2
14
45
13.4K
Brian Smith
Brian Smith@brianrobtsmith·
@ProfNickStephan @StephenESachs I appreciate your bipartisan concern over partisan fairness in congressional districting. Does it by chance extend to other arenas of power? Say, the Harvard faculty composition?
English
1
0
1
36
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
The problem isn’t balancing a bunch of legitimate goals; that’s easy enough. The problem is prioritizing one illegitimate goal - partisan advantage - over just about everything else.
Stephen E. Sachs@StephenESachs

Congress should just adopt maximum compactness from 2028 on and have done with it. Balancing multiple goals at once (party share, “communities of interest,” etc) means endless room for mischief. Just take the discretion out of the system.

English
1
4
17
3.3K
Stephen E. Sachs
Stephen E. Sachs@StephenESachs·
@ProfNickStephan How do you legislate a partisan-vote-share test, though? I agree re: the current debate, but there’s a lot of suspicion of commissions etc., and in the absence of a clear standard to impose the partisans can have their fun.
English
1
0
2
230
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
@StephenESachs I don't see a debate over the balance of multiple legitimate factors as a major part of the current conversation over redistricting! Also, if we were to choose one determinate goal, I'd pick partisan fairness, not compactness, since plans' effects are most people's main concern.
English
1
0
1
261
Stephen E. Sachs
Stephen E. Sachs@StephenESachs·
@ProfNickStephan Part of the problem, though, is a deep distrust (warranted or no) of whoever might be choosing the relative balance of multiple factors. That’s the argument for a single-minded focus on compactness: not that it’s optimal, but that it’s determinate.
English
1
0
11
1.9K
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
@RickEsenberg The constitutional concern driving Callais is Congress potentially exceeding its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority. The concern *isn't* race-conscious action potentially violating the Equal Protection Clause.
English
1
0
0
186
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
@nyttypos Fair enough, I should have said Callais didn't change Fifteenth Amendment doctrine about intentional racial discrimination -- which is what PILF is alleging.
English
1
0
2
202
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
This lawsuit's claim isn't actually bolstered by Callais; the Court didn't say that Section 2 (or state laws like it) violate the 15th Amendment, and there's no evidence of invidious intent here. Also, if PILF won, the remedy would be...a more aggressive Democratic gerrymander.
Public Interest Legal Foundation@PILFoundation

We've filed the first lawsuit following the Louisiana Callais SCOTUS case. Our client alleges the Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011's redistricting mandates violate the 15th Amendment and Section 2a of the national Voting Rights Act of 1965. @JBPritzker explicitly adopted racial purposes behind redistricting guidelines, namely sorting and allocating political power based on race. 🧵

English
3
2
20
2.7K
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
After the VA ruling and the post-Callais redraws, it’s clear the House will be skewed in Republicans’ favor in 2026. But this bias probably won’t cost Democrats their majority, and further redraws (including in VA again) can make the House more neutral by 2028.
English
1
1
9
697
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
After Callais, some say Dems in blue states face a tragic choice between reducing minority representation and increasing Dem seats. That's not true. You can generally draw maps with more Dem seats and the same (or more) opportunity districts. electionlawblog.org/?p=155864
English
2
21
63
9.5K
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
This is incorrect. SCOTUS held that Section 5 of the VRA applies to redistricting back in 1969. It's true that *Section 2* claims against district maps didn't start until the 1980s -- after Congress amended the provision in 1982 (an amendment now undone by Callais).
Sarah Isgur@whignewtons

Note: The original 1965 VRA wasnt applied to redistricting. Post 1990 census was the first use. Republicans begged conservative lawyers not to bring these cases bc packing Dem voters into majority minority districts helped the GOP.

English
1
13
85
14.3K
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
This is either bravado or it’ll backfire. Callais didn’t change the law on racial gerrymandering (as opposed to racial vote dilution). And even if it did, quite a few blue states would be happy to be forced to redistrict by a court order.
Democracy Docket@DemocracyDocket

🧨 NEW: Trump’s DOJ is preparing to weaponize the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act and challenge maps that protect Black and Latino voters — starting with California. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/we…

English
2
6
23
4.4K
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
I.e., a case with a more extreme outcome than Roberts wanted, because he was basically content with the Gingles framework that he upheld in Milligan. (The big difference from Dobbs, of course, is Roberts's silence in Callais.) nytimes.com/2026/04/30/us/…
English
0
1
14
1.2K
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
If Roberts was playing the long game against the VRA, why did he write Milligan? Given Kavanaugh's uneasy concurrence, Roberts could likely have gotten the Court to go the other way. I tend to see Callais not as a victory for Roberts but as almost a rerun of Dobbs.
English
5
4
66
8.3K
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
To be clear, nothing in Callais says that existing maps (outside LA) are *unconstitutional.* The case just says the maps can likely be redrawn without violating Section 2. States certainly don’t *have* to redraw the maps.
Max Cohen@maxpcohen

Redistricting watch: Speaker Johnson backs the idea of red states redrawing House maps this cycle after Callais. “All states that have unconstitutional maps should look at that very carefully and I think they should do it before the midterms”

English
10
1
37
5.5K
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Nicholas Stephanopoulos@ProfNickStephan·
@kkondik Yup. I think the original Black-opportunity district is just as vulnerable as the new one. LA can just say its goal is a 6-0 plan, which any plaintiff map would then have to (but couldn’t possibly) match.
English
0
0
6
418
Kyle Kondik
Kyle Kondik@kkondik·
@ProfNickStephan do you think there is any meaningful legal difference between efforts to push for the creation of a new majority-minority seat (LA-6 as created for 2024) versus defending a pre-existing majority-minority seat (LA-2 as it previously existed)
English
2
0
3
2.3K