Via Democracy Docket:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito leaned on an erroneous claim that Black voter turnout now tops white voter turnout, in his Callais v. Louisiana ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act, reports The Guardian.

Alito wrote in the ruling that "present-day intentional racial discrimination" must now be proven in claims that state congressional maps rob minorities of opportunities to vote for their preferred candidates. He further claimed that Black voters now have higher voter turnout rates than white voters, in his opinion that the Voting Rights Act no longer needs to correct for historic voter suppression and obstruction against minorities.

However, The Guardian found that Alito was relying on a faulty data methodology to arrive at that conclusion. Instead of comparing the turnout rates of those actually eligible to vote, Alito based his analysis on the total population over the voting age of 18, regardless of voter eligibility.

"[The DoJ approach] is misleading because they're including ineligible voters in the denominator," University of Florida voting expert Michael McDonald told The Guardian. "If I wanted to manipulate the numbers in a way that was favorable to the government's interest, I would be using voting age population."

Alito wrote in his ruling that "Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent Presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana." When using total voting-age population numbers in Louisiana, it shows that Black voter turnout edged white voters in the 2016 election 60.9% to 60.8%.

However, when controlling for those ineligible to vote - due to incarceration, felony status, lack of citizenship, or because they aren't registered - white turnout exceeds Black turnout by much wider margins.

Of course it does.

They can't be this stupid. It's almost certainly something Louisiana knew when they put those numbers forward in the case. Alito would never questions them since they showed what he wanted them to show.

Every day we learn something new about this case that puts it in the category of Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson. I'm sure Trump thinks that's great because he's never heard of those cases. But John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett are likely becoming aware -- Roberts whined this week about people saying the court is partisan, which is hilarious. It really is that bad.