> Here's some evidence.

These are opinion pieces.

> They ruled to allow state legislatures to override voters by changing state law to allow that

No they didn’t. Nothing in the pieces linked states this.

> and an upcoming case to watch, where they're expected to further undermine laws:

This isn’t a meaningful sentence.

"These are opinion pieces."

That refer to facts such as throwing out the voting rights act, and the decision on gerrymandering? Maybe try reading the opinion pieces??

Nobody has ‘thrown out’ the voting rights act. That’s an opinion. Part of it has not been upheld as constitutional.

The decision on gerrymandering is real.

But you seem to be thinking this is evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy rather than just normal bias. Even that piece admits that gerrymandering was invented by the democrats. This is just normal US politics at work.

"Nobody has ‘thrown out’ the voting rights act. That’s an opinion. Part of it has not been upheld as constitutional."

Semantics.

"The decision on gerrymandering is real."

Yes. It is.

"But you seem to be thinking this is evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy rather than just normal bias. Even that piece admits that gerrymandering was invented by the democrats. This is just normal US politics at work."

Do you not understand the difference between democratic and Democratic? Otherwise, what's the relevance of gerrymandering having been invented by Democrats. The court upholding it is anti democratic

> Do you not understand the difference between democratic and Democratic? Otherwise, what's the relevance of gerrymandering having been invented by Democrats.

That it's a normal part of US politics engaged in by all political parties.

> The court upholding it is anti democratic.

Is it? If it's a normal part of US politics, that is far from clear.

The point is that it's not evidence of a conspiracy to end democracy.

>That it's a normal part of US politics engaged in by all political parties.

Debatable. It's facially anti-democratic. That it's something that can be engaged in a partisan matter doesn't support your argument.

OK, if you don't believe commentators or legal analysts, then read the actual supreme court rulings and the case matter for the upcoming case. They are public record.