Just last week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in a significant challenge to the Voting Rights Act. Depending on how it’s decided, this case could set a new legal precedent for future redistricting fights. The case was brought to challenge a Louisiana congressional map. Attorneys for the state, a coalition of non-Black voters, and the Trump administration are working together urging the court to strike down the map drawn for the 2024 elections.
The possible repercussions of this ruling are deep, poised to eviscerate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This section prevents electoral maps from being drawn in such a way that minority groups’ voting power is diluted. If the court agrees to gut Section 2, it would create substantial barriers for future redistricting lawsuits based on race.
Edward Greim, representing the challengers who claim the current map is unconstitutional. He argues that solutions to racial inequities should only be aimed at preventing intentional discrimination. He insisted that any race-based remedy needs to be strictly tailored and justified by clear evidence of intentional discrimination.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson engaged Greim in a discussion about the definition of intentional discrimination, probing the implications of his argument on voter representation and minority rights.
Texas lawyer Benjamin Aguinaga, the solicitor general of Louisiana, argued against Louisiana’s new congressional map. He argued that fears of repeal of Section 2 going too far would be overblown. Aguinaga stated, “I think there’s been a lot of sky is falling rhetoric from the other side in this case,” attempting to downplay fears surrounding the potential consequences of the court’s decision.
The justices were deeply concerned about the effects of destroying Section 2 in whole. Justice Elena Kagan warned about the sweeping implications this might have on electoral representation for minority communities.
Nelson rebutted Aguinaga’s claims, pointing out that repealing Section 2 would have “disastrous” effects. She also pointed out that we cannot disregard race-based remedies entirely. It remains constitutional to take race into account when trying to address discrimination in those same areas.
“They assume, for example, that a black voter, simply because he is black, must think like other black voters, share the same interests and prefer the same political candidates, and this stereotyping system has no logical endpoint.” – Janai Nelson
Sonia Sotomayor countered Greim’s assertion by noting, “The 15th amendment is not limited to ‘intentional’ discrimination.” This strong language, crafted to be functionally expansive, signals the resulting wide-ranging protections envisioned by the amendment. The brief opposes the challengers’ narrow interpretation.
Greim did not retreat from his insistence that any remedy be based on specific cases of known intentional discrimination. He stated, “If a race-based remedy is involved, it must be in response to ‘intentional discrimination.’”
This case marks a historic inflection point for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This case has the potential to set important precedents that will impact future redistricting lawsuits nationwide. The justices’ deliberations reflect deep concerns about balancing constitutional principles with ensuring fair representation for minority voters.
Second, Aguinaga helped mount a serious constitutional argument against race-based redistricting on the grounds that it violates equal protection principles. He stated, “Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our constitution,” reinforcing his and his clients’ stance against existing protections under Section 2.
As court debates show, this gap is only growing. On one hand, some proponents of the law insist on a narrow interpretation of intentional discrimination to prohibit redistricting, while others advocate for wider interpretations that recognize the systemic inequalities minority voters experience.
Even as this case moves ahead, it is unclear how this would play out in the Supreme Court. One thing is certain: the outcome will have lasting implications on how electoral maps are drawn and how minority voting rights are protected in the United States.