Now the United States Supreme Court appears primed to further dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This landmark provision was originally designed to protect against racial gerrymandering, the practice of diluting Black political power. This case has its origins in the recent congressional districting maps drawn in Louisiana. According to the state’s 2020 census, Black residents today make up close to one-third of that state’s population. The ultimate effects of this ruling may reshape political power, influence representation of minority communities, and redistricting initiatives nationwide.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act empowers the federal government to intervene in cases where voters face discrimination based on race. Historically, this has permitted packing enough Black voters into a sufficient number of districts to create majority-minority districts, ensuring that Black voters get the representation they need. Yet as we’ve noted, Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly condemned these kinds of measures meant to remedy past and present racial discrimination. He thinks that racial animus and inequality have both gone the way of the dinosaur. Consequently, he argues that those kinds of safeguards are unnecessary today.
Defenders of regulatory reform still clung to the 2013 Supreme Court’s landmark ruling. In fact, over several terms, they systematically dismantled most of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This provision required jurisdictions found to have discriminated against citizens on the basis of race to receive federal preclearance before changing their voting laws. Roberts is right that laws intended to stop racial discrimination can sometimes end up deepening racial divides. Unfortunately, this view is continuing to gain steam among certain justices.
The current case at issue is specifically focused on Louisiana’s new congressional districting maps, which were redrawn after the 2020 census. At first, these maps featured just one majority-Black congressional district even though the state qualified for six congressional seats. A federal court recently ordered Louisiana to draw more districts. These new districts would have to draw Black voters to a majority, as the Voting Rights Act requires.
Now, a notable legal challenge has materialized. A coalition of voters is making the case that defending these racially proportionate maps is a violation of their rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito noted during oral arguments that if a racial gerrymander serves partisan purposes, it may be justified. This advocacy position does beg the question about the balance between racial equity and political representation.
The logistics of these proposed changes are troubling for many election advocacy groups. Recent amendments to the Voting Rights Act have resulted in a considerable increase in the disparity of voter turnout rates. This gap is most pronounced between Black and white Americans. The Supreme Court’s earlier decisions—including the often-ignored but still binding sentence of Washington v. This is what makes this case so special.
“The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – John Roberts
Civil rights advocates and critics of the proposal maintain that eliminating Section 2 would worsen current gaps in political representation for minority communities. Yet, as the Washington Post reports, the resulting state-level gerrymanders are expected to lock up Republicans for a net gain of 19 House seats. These results represent a stark contrast to initiatives striving to provide greater representation for underrepresented minority groups.
This case is ongoing, so stay tuned. It focuses a much needed spotlight on the current battle over race, representation, and the federal government’s role in safeguarding our right to vote. Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized the complexities inherent in addressing these issues, stating that they “are so tied up with race because race is the initial problem.”