The US Supreme Court is poised to deal a devastating blow to the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of American democracy. This act, a legacy of the civil rights movement, is now facing its final stand. The Court's decision could unravel the progress made over decades to ensure equal voting rights for all, especially Black Americans.
The case, Louisiana v Callais, stems from a dispute over congressional districting maps in Louisiana. After the 2020 census, Louisiana was eligible for six seats in the House of Representatives, and its population was approximately one-third Black. The state initially proposed maps with only one majority-Black district, ignoring seven more racially fair options. Voters challenged this, and federal courts ordered Louisiana to create maps that reflected the Black population's share and gave them an equal chance to elect their representatives.
However, a group identifying as "non-African-American voters" has sued to overturn these racially proportionate maps. They argue that enforcing the Voting Rights Act violates their rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments, claiming that measures to protect Black voters constitute discrimination against non-Black individuals. The Supreme Court seems inclined to agree with this argument, setting the stage for a controversial ruling.
If the Court sides with the "non-African-American" voters, it will effectively nullify the Voting Rights Act, considered the pinnacle of civil rights achievements. This act has been under attack by the Supreme Court for years, with Chief Justice John Roberts leading the charge. In the 2013 case, Shelby County v Holder, the Court struck down a significant portion of Section 5, which required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to seek federal approval for changes to their voting laws.
Since then, the Court has consistently narrowed the conditions under which voting rights claims can be brought and expanded states' ability to make potentially discriminatory voting laws. The result has been a widening gap between Black and white voter participation rates, especially in districts previously subject to Section 5's preclearance regime.
During Wednesday's oral arguments, the Court appeared determined to apply the same logic used in Shelby County to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito suggested that racial gerrymandering is justified if it is intended as a partisan gerrymander, prioritizing lawmakers' stated intentions over the racially discriminatory impact.
This stance contradicts previous Supreme Court precedents and ample evidence from congressional records, which have established that discriminatory impact, not intent, constitutes illegal racial discrimination. However, during the oral arguments, the Republican justices and those representing the litigants seemed unmoved by these considerations. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court's passionate advocate for the Reconstruction Amendments and civil rights, expressed her frustration, emphasizing that the remedies are tied to race because race is the underlying issue.
The case reflects the Roberts Court's hostility towards racial justice claims brought by minorities and its willingness to twist civil rights law and the Reconstruction Amendments to entrench historical hierarchies of race and gender. Louisiana's attorney general, who has switched sides since the case was initially argued, claimed that assuming Black voters would vote differently than white voters is an unconstitutional racial stereotype. This argument, a simplistic fiction, elicited exasperation from Justice Kagan.
The attorney general's argument aligns with Chief Justice Roberts' long-held belief that practices aimed at remedying historical and ongoing racial discrimination should be discouraged. Roberts has advocated for race-blind policies, arguing that the law mandates ignoring race, even when such practices disproportionately harm Black Americans. His famous quote, "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," encapsulates this view.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the "non-African-American" voters, it will effectively legalize racial gerrymandering of congressional districts, minimizing and diluting Black voter power. At the same time, using race to redistrict in a way that restores Black voter power will remain illegal.
This decision, based on what many see as fanciful and motivated reasoning, demonstrates the Court's increasing willingness to act in bad faith. By claiming that measures to secure Black Americans' voting rights and equality violate the very amendments meant to protect them, the Court is turning a blind eye to reality. The Voting Rights Act enforces the 15th Amendment; it does not contradict it.
If the Court rules as expected, a decision is likely to come in June, just months before the 2026 midterm elections. The resulting racial gerrymanders are projected to give Republicans an additional 19 House seats. This outcome would be a significant setback for democracy and equal rights, highlighting the urgent need for continued vigilance and advocacy.
