US supreme court expedites Voting Rights Act ruling so Louisiana can redraw its maps for midterms | US supreme court
US supreme court left on monday Helping Louisiana Republicans redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections by allowing a recent ruling that would eliminate a key section of the Voting Rights Act to go into effect ahead of schedule.
The procedural move comes less than a week after the court’s landmark decision that struck down Louisiana’s congressional map and gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Generally, the court waits 32 days to formally issue its decision to the lower court. Last week, Louisiana asked the court to expedite that process, citing the urgency of redrawing congressional maps. On Monday, the court agreed.
“The scheduled date for early voting to begin in the primaries has long passed. The congressional district map adopted by the legislature has been deemed unconstitutional, and the general election will be held in just six months,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.
The decision is expected to provide greater legal protection for Louisiana Republicans, who took the extraordinary step of canceling primary elections for Congress on May 16 after mail-in ballots reached voters abroad. There is an ongoing lawsuit challenging that decision, and if the high court expedites its decision it could bolster Louisiana’s legal arguments that new elections should be held.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented from the court’s decision on Monday, prevented the court from deviating from the usual procedure. He wrote that there have only been two times in the past 25 years that the court has expedited its decision.
“To avoid the appearance of bias here, we could have chosen, as always, to remain on the sidelines and not take any position, following our default procedures. But today the Court chooses the opposite. Not content to decide the law, it is now taking steps to influence its implementation,” he wrote. “The court’s decision to set aside our customary practice under Rule 45.3 and immediately issue the decision is tantamount to an endorsement of Louisiana’s rush to pause ongoing elections to pass a new map.”
He said bitterly that the majority of the court “today has broken free of both restraints and plunged into the fray. And so these principles have given way to power.”
The accusation prompted a strong response from Alito, who wrote an opinion joined by fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He wrote that Jackson’s language was “unfounded and insulting.”
“The opposition continues to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of force. This is an unfounded and completely irresponsible accusation,” he wrote. “What principle did the court violate? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened, even for good reason? The principle that we, as fans, should never take any action that could be unfairly criticized?”
