Summary
- The Supreme Court considers limiting Voting Rights Act protections.
- Focus on Section 2, barring racially discriminatory electoral maps.
- Conservative justices skeptical of indefinite race-based districting.
The court's six conservative justices appeared likely to essentially overturn a Louisiana congressional district with a Black majority due to its over-reliance on race throughout the two and a half hours of arguments.
The Civil Rights Movement's main piece of legislation, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was successful in granting Black Americans the right to vote and lowering ongoing discrimination in voting, would undergo a significant shift as a result of this achievement.
Legislators may be able to change congressional maps in southern states as a result of a Louisiana judgment, which would improve Republican election prospects by removing districts with a plurality of Black and Latino voters that often support Democrats. Due to a 2019 Supreme Court ruling, legislatures are already allowed to create highly political districts, with state courts being the only ones to examine them.
Two years previously, in a similar issue concerning Alabama's political borders, the court upheld a decision that found a probable violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by a vote of 5–4. Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts joined their three other liberal colleagues in the decision.
Particularly in their inquiries to civil rights attorney Janai Nelson on Wednesday, Roberts and Kavanaugh adopted a different tone.
The chief justice argued that the Alabama ruling should not be interpreted to mandate a similar result in Louisiana since it was narrowly focused on its facts.
Nelson was questioned by Kavanaugh about whether the Voting Rights Act's use of race-based districts should be discontinued now or "permanently extended."
In their efforts to prevent prejudice, the liberal justices of the court emphasized the history of the Voting Rights Act. According to Justice Elena Kagan, a court must identify "a specific identified, proven violation of law" before it can proceed with the remedy of redrawing districts.
Following Republican President Donald Trump's calls for Texas and other GOP-controlled states to redraw their congressional boundaries in order to help the GOP maintain its slim majority in the House, a mid-decade war over redistricting is already taking place across the country.
The conservative majority on the court has been unconvinced of racial concerns, most recently abolishing college admissions affirmative action. Another cornerstone of the historic voting statute, which required states with a history of racial discrimination to obtain prior clearance from the Justice Department or federal judges before implementing election-related changes, was bludgeoned by the court twelve years ago.
Separately, the court has allowed state legislatures to gerrymander for political reasons. States would not be subject to any restrictions on how they create electoral districts if the Supreme Court were to weaken or invalidate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Extreme gerrymandering by the party in power at the state level is likely to follow from such a result.
Two more Black Democrats were elected to Congress as a result of new districts created in Louisiana and Alabama as a result of the court's 2023 ruling.
However, the court has now asked the parties to respond to a basic question: "Does the state's deliberate creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violate the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments?"
Together with a group of white voters, Louisiana and the Trump administration argued that the challenged district should be declared illegal and that it would be far more difficult to establish discrimination in redistricting.
The arguments led Justice Sonia Sotomayor to assert that the administration's “bottom line is just get rid of Section 2.”
Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan disagreed and said state lawmakers would have no incentive to get rid of every majority Black district because doing so would create swing districts and imperil some Republican incumbents.
In addition, Mooppan said, only 15 of the 60 Black members of the House represent majority Black districts. “But even if you eliminated Section 2 entirely, fully 75% of the Black congressmen in this country are in districts that are not protected by Section 2.”
Roberts expressed doubts about the second majority Black district, which elected Democratic Representative Cleo Fields last year, during the initial arguments in the Louisiana case in March. Roberts compared the district, which connects portions of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Baton Rouge cities, to a "snake" that is more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) long.
Three years have passed since the judicial battle over Louisiana's congressional districts began.
In 2022, the state's Republican-controlled legislature created a new congressional map that took into consideration changes in the population as reported by the 2020 census. However, the modifications essentially preserved the current configuration of one majority Black district with a Democratic leaning and five Republican-leaning majority white districts.
A lower court decision that the districts probably discriminated against Black voters was secured by civil rights activists.
In order to abide by the court's decision and safeguard its powerful Republican lawmakers, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson, the state ultimately created a new map. In their separate case, however, white Louisiana voters asserted that race was the primary cause. The latest high court case began when a three-judge court agreed.