US Supreme Court ruling guts minority vote protections, could redraw political map by 2028
The court’s conservative majority, in a 6-3 decision, found that the Louisiana district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields was based largely on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the 6th Congressional District as a “snake” stretching more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) connecting Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and parts of Baton Rouge.
“This map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for six conservatives.
The impact of the decision could be felt more strongly in 2028 because most of the filing deadlines for this year’s congressional races have passed. But Louisiana may need to change its redistricting plan to comply with the decision.
It’s unclear how much of the provision known as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains.
More than 60 years ago, when he signed into law the bill that became the primary means of challenging racially discriminatory voting practices, President Lyndon Johnson called it “as great a victory for liberty as any victory on any battlefield.”
Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting from three liberal justices, wrote that the court’s “evisceration of Section 2 jeopardizes that success.” His sentiments were shared by former President Barack Obama, who said the decision showed that “a majority of the current Court appears determined to abdicate its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”
Fields said in a statement that the decision’s “practical effect is to make it much more difficult for minority communities to challenge redistricting maps that weaken their political voices.”
Potential political implications The voting rights act succeeded in opening the ballot box to Black Americans and reducing persistent discrimination in voting. About 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2, election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos estimates.
Alito wrote that “allowing race to play any role in government decision-making amounts to a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in nearly every context.” He said that Part 2 was effectively limited to cases of intentional discrimination, which was too high a standard.
The upshot of the decision, Kagan said, is that states can “systematically dilute the voting power of minority citizens without legal consequence.”
Reactions to the decision fell along partisan lines.
“This is a complete and utter victory for American voters. The color of a person’s skin should not determine which congressional district you belong to. We commend the court for ending the unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act and protecting civil rights,” White House press secretary Abigail Jackson wrote in an email.
The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called the decision “appalling.” Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington state said it was the latest in a long series of attacks by President Donald Trump and the conservative court “against the fundamental right of every American citizen to vote.”
He said Democrats are poised to regain their House majority in November “despite this corrupt and targeted attack by the Supreme Court on the voting rights of Black and Brown Americans.”
The incumbent, whom Trump likes, has launched a nationwide redistricting contest this year to boost Republicans’ chances of maintaining their edge in the House of Representatives. The president said some states should redraw their maps and called the decision “the kind of decision I like.”
Legislatures are already free to draw hyperpartisan districts because of a 2019 Supreme Court decision.
Wednesday’s decision comes as Florida lawmakers debate a proposal to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries, introduced by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, that aims to give the GOP a chance to pick up up to four seats in the state’s U.S. House delegation.
Democrats in the Florida Senate asked the Republican majority to delay debate at least long enough to allow lawmakers to read the resolution and consult with lawyers about how it would affect DeSantis’ proposal. Republicans refused and the Legislature approved the new map.
In the Supreme Court’s Louisiana decision, the justices took a different stance than the ruling in a similar case in Alabama less than three years ago, leading to a new congressional map for the state that sent two Black Democrats to Congress.
The Alabama decision also prompted Louisiana lawmakers to add a second majority-black district. Nearly a third of Louisianans are black, and they now make up the majority in two of the state’s six congressional districts. Alabama has a separate appeal pending at the Supreme Court
Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined three liberals to form the majority in the Alabama case, the same period in which the conservative-dominated court ended affirmative action in college admissions. Both agreed with Alito on Wednesday.
Roberts has long scrutinized the Voting Rights Act The chief justice has been at the center of an effort to limit the use of race in public life. He had had the Voting Rights Act in his sights since his time as a young lawyer in the Reagan-era Justice Department.
“Dividing us by race is an abomination,” Roberts wrote in a dissenting opinion in his first major voting rights case as chief justice in 2006.
In 2013, Roberts wrote for the majority to eliminate the law’s requirement that states and localities with a history of discrimination, mostly in the South, seek approval before making any election-related changes.
“Our country has changed, and while racial discrimination of all kinds in voting is rampant, Congress must ensure that the legislation it enacts to address this problem is appropriate to current circumstances,” Roberts said. he wrote.
Barring extraordinary action, the broader impact will likely be felt in 2028; Republicans could potentially flip more than a dozen Democrat-held House districts previously protected under the Voting Rights Act.
“The Voting Rights Act is essentially dead as a way to protect minority voters from vote dilution,” said Jonathan Cervas, a political scientist at Carnegie Mellon University who has served as an outside legal expert on many Voting Rights Act cases.
