Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Voting rights activists get reprieve in 2023, surprising some Supreme Court Retained the most important remaining elements of the Voting Rights Act.
decision forced Alabama and later allowed Louisiana to redraw its congressional maps. Black Greater representation of residents, move that ultimately sent two additional black MPs Washington,
Two years later, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is before the court again. This time, it’s a hearing on a Louisiana lawsuit over the state’s redrawn congressional map, which revolves around the same part of the 60-year-old law.
At the center of Wednesday’s arguments is a simple question, and one with potentially far-reaching consequences: Will the court, with the same line of judges deciding the 2023 case, change its mind about the landmark law?
What is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Section 2 is the primary way plaintiffs can challenge racially discriminatory election practices. For nearly 50 years, a companion part of the law, Section 5, required some states and counties with a history of discriminatory voting practices to obtain federal review before changing their election rules. Most of those places were in the south.
In 2013, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in a case called Shelby v. Holder, which struck down the pre-clearance requirement in the civil rights-era law. States that were under its jurisdiction began announcing changes to their election and voting laws, most of which were restrictive.
It accelerated in Republican-controlled states after Pres. donald trump He began lying about his defeat in the 2020 election, falsely claiming it was caused by widespread fraud.
A ruling against Section 2 would largely nullify the Voting Rights Act, said Binny Miller, a law professor at American University.
“When Section 5 existed, it created a lot of problems that turned into Section 2 litigation,” he said.
Without those two pillars of the law, plaintiffs will have a much harder time challenging the new voting restrictions. Instead, they must prove that lawmakers intended to discriminate.
More black representation in Congress
Louisiana’s Republican-dominated Legislature drew a new congressional map in 2022 to take into account population changes reflected in the 2020 census. But the changes effectively maintained the status quo of five Republican-leaning majority white districts and one Democratic-leaning majority black district in the state, where the population is about a third black.
After civil rights advocates challenged the map, a district judge and then a federal appeals court panel agreed that the original map likely violated Section 2.
The Supreme Court took up a similar case in Alabama and put that decision on hold. The court’s 2023 decision in favor of a second black district there led to the election of Representative Shomari Figures.
Following that decision, Republican Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry urged the Legislature to revise the state’s congressional map and create a new majority minority district, which would give black residents a greater chance to elect a representative of their choice. His second goal was to maintain safe Republican districts, including those held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
The new 6th Congressional District, represented by Democratic Representative Cleo Fields, spans more than 200 miles (320 kilometers), connecting parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.
White plaintiff’s lawsuit challenges new district
A separate group of plaintiffs, a group of self-described “non-African Americans” filed a lawsuit in January 2024 claiming that the new map that led to Fields’ election was illegal because it was heavily motivated by race, violating the Constitution.
In court filings, those plaintiffs have argued that the basis of the new district is racial and does not follow standards for drawing the district, including compactness: “The state has not even tried to cover up its motives or offer race-neutral reasons for the map,” a court filing said.
The Supreme Court heard the case in March but no decision was reached in that period. In an unusual move, a new briefing on the matter was instead ordered, leading to debate on Wednesday.
Why is the matter being debated again?
The Court asked the parties to answer this question: “Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
Those amendments, adopted after the Civil War, were intended to bring political equality to black Americans.
Justice Clarence Thomas indicated at least one approach in his dissent against not addressing the case last session, arguing that the Court’s interpretation of Section 2 is in direct conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
He argued, “The Constitution is above the laws and no intervening developments will change it.”
Ahead of the new hearing, Louisiana dropped its defense of the map it drew and urged the Supreme Court to reject any consideration of race in redistricting.
There is a range of possible outcomes. The court may send the case back to the lower court with instructions to create a new map, including re-examining some of the maps submitted by the original plaintiff. At the extreme, the Court could say that Section 2 and its reliance on racial considerations is inconsistent with the 14th and 15th Amendments.
How could cuts to Section 2 affect future elections?
The new Alabama district created after the Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 will almost certainly go out of existence, along with the Louisiana seat now held by Fields. All other congressional districts resulting from Section 2 cases would also be at risk.
It doesn’t stop here.
The role of Section 2 is often discussed in relation to Congress. But about three-quarters of all Section 2 lawsuits involve state and local government bodies, said Kareem Creighton, senior director of voting and representation at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
City councils, county commissions, school boards and other local elected offices have been “direct recipients” of plaintiffs bringing those cases, he said.
A significant decision that weakens that part of the Voting Rights Act would likely also derail another voting rights case coming to the court. That includes two North Dakota Native American tribes that have filed a lawsuit to overturn a legislative map that they say doesn’t represent them.
A panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the tribes, overturning decades of precedent in doing so. It says private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights challenges. The judges said that authority is reserved for the U.S. Justice Department, even though it is responsible for filing only a fraction of these types of cases.
If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 in the Louisiana case, the case would appear to be controversial, especially if it prohibits challenging voting or election laws deemed racially discriminatory.