Hmm... ckroberts I think there's something we should discuss there. Gimme a minute.

I think Sec. Galvin made a very good case for why Roberts was wrong.

The data that Galvin referenced clearly shows Roberts claim is unfounded and even points out the "mistakes" that Roberts likely made when drawing his conclusion. Unless Roberts comes back with the actual data he used to draw his claims, I think it's pretty clear he was in the wrong.

To put it another way, one of the big problems in American journalism is that reporters are unable or unwilling to do any actual reporting beyond acting as mouthpieces for competing political factions.

And before you ask, no, that never gets old.

Abge, that won't ever happen, will it? Or can it? That's a serious question. I can't imagine a Chief Justice responding directly to something like that, even if he made a serious screw up.

Well, if he *had* the data, the he should and would release it. Would make Galvin and Mass look awfully foolish. If he doesn't, then I think it's safe to assume that he was talking out of his ass.

How would he go about releasing it? This seems like the kind of political fight that Supreme Court justices don't get it into. And to be clear, I agree with you -- it appears that Roberts (as far as I know, no relation) misused statistics or was just plain wrong.

Perhaps someone like Semck could enlighten us, but don't Opinions usually come with supporting documents? Probably not complied by the Justices themselves, but by underlings. Are Justices not required or expected to back their statements?

For what it's worth, the same claim about the ratio of 2004 voter turnout in Massachusetts was made in a table published in one of the lower court opinions. It's at page 77 of this pdf: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D79C82694E572B4D85257A02004EC903/$file/11-5256-1374370.pdf

(Sorry-- page 76.)

I get the impression that the question came during oral arguments. Maybe (hopefully?) Roberts will include documentation in his decision, if he writes one.

That's interesting, Will. I'll take a look at that. Thanks.

Alright, I have two serious problems with that graph

1) It seems to be considering all people who are over 18, not all *citizens* over 18. I say this because other charts specifically mention the word "citizen" and this chart doesn't. As Galvin has already pointed out, Mass has a large non-citizen Black population.

2) Mass is listed as only "partially-covered" in this graph. What does that mean? How accurate is this graph really?

I don't know what's going on with citizenship in that graph. But I believe Massachusetts is listed as "not covered" at all. The partially-covered states are New York, Florida, California, etc. "Not covered" states are ones that are not covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act at all -- the lower-court judge is trying to make the point that some of the "worst" states in terms of voting disparity are not covered by Section 5.

I have no idea how accurate the graph is. I just noticed it, and suspect that it's and the underlying data are the source of the controversial claims.

Ah, thanks. I misunderstood what they were referring to by "covered". That makes a lot more sense.

So, looking at this table, where the data seem to have come from:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2004/tab04a.xls

It appears that Mass is a bit low, except:
1) There is a 10 point margin of error, meaning it may not actually be that low
2) Many states didn't have enough information to be considered, so we have no idea how they relate to Mass.

Based upon what I heard on NPR yesterday, I believe will is accurate in his description...i.e. Mass. is worse that the 7 (I believe) states that are fully covered, and those states are arguing that they should all be viewed equal under the law - and that there are already provisions in place that would stop them from voter discrimination.

@krellin

That may very well be true. But, that isn't what Roberts said.

A Supreme Court Chief Justice is certainly not going to get into a public argument with a newspaper about statistics that were mentioned during oral argument. He'll likely say nothing about this at least until the opinion phase, unless he decides he was wrong and wishes to issue an apology (unlikely).

At the opinion phase, IF he writes the opinion (or a concurrence/dissent), and IF he still feels that the Mass. point is sufficiently important to his argument to include _in the written opinion_, then, yes, he would provide some kind of reference or citation. However, he is perfectly free to completely ignore the line of argument he was making at oral argument, in which case it's unlikely he would mention it at all. And if somebody else writes the opinion, then it's unlikely that person will mention it, unless it's somebody on the left wing of the court, when they might very well mention Massachusetts snarkily (but without explicitly referencing Roberts) as an in joke.

Thanks, semck. That's more-or-less what I figured. We'll see if it makes it into the written opinion (probably not, after this).