A leading election law scholar says something has dramatically changed with Chief Justice John Roberts — and he believes the consequences for American democracy could be enormous.

Writing in Slate, University of California, Irvine law professor Richard Hasen warned that Roberts appears to have abandoned the slow, cautious strategy he used for decades while weakening the Voting Rights Act.

And according to Hasen, the sudden acceleration is deeply unsettling.

For years, Roberts was viewed as methodical in reshaping voting rights law — carefully narrowing protections through incremental Supreme Court decisions.

But Hasen says the past month marked a dramatic change.

The concern centers around the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, a 6-3 decision that Hasen argues effectively destroyed what remained of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the key provision used to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps.

What shocked Hasen most was not just the ruling itself, but the speed.

According to the legal scholar, the court rushed the decision unusually quickly, bypassing procedural timelines that courts traditionally respect in major election-related cases.

Days later, the court also handed Republicans a major victory in Alabama redistricting litigation, allowing the elimination of a Black opportunity district despite findings from lower courts that racial discrimination had occurred.

Hasen warned that the rulings could now allow states to defend racially discriminatory maps simply by claiming partisan motives instead.

And in Southern states — where Black voters overwhelmingly support Democrats — he argued that distinction becomes almost meaningless.

“Every state now has an incentive to squeeze out as many seats for the dominant party as it can,” Hasen warned.

The longtime voting rights expert said he sees three possible explanations for Roberts’ sudden urgency — and none are reassuring.

One possibility, he wrote, is outright partisanship.

Another is “motivated reasoning,” where conservative justices no longer recognize the real-world damage their rulings are causing.

The third possibility may be the most unsettling of all: that Roberts, now 71 years old, fears time is running out to complete his decades-long effort to reshape election law before growing public pressure for Supreme Court reform intensifies.

Hasen also pointed out the irony that Roberts appears to be abandoning the very legal principle that once defined his election philosophy.

The professor famously coined the “Purcell principle,” which argued courts should avoid major election rule changes close to elections because of the risk of chaos and voter confusion.

Now, Hasen says, the Supreme Court itself appears willing to ignore that principle entirely.

The shift has changed Hasen’s own position as well.

Once cautious about Supreme Court reform proposals, the respected scholar now says recent developments have forced him to reconsider.

And his warning is blunt:

“None of the possibilities are good ones.”