The fate of voting rights hangs in the balance as the US Supreme Court teeters on a controversial decision. Will the court strike down a crucial pillar of racial equality?
The Voting Rights Act, a landmark legislation from 1965, is on the brink of losing its final safeguard: Section 2, which grants the federal government the power to combat racial gerrymandering aimed at diminishing Black political influence. During oral arguments in the Louisiana v. Callais case, the Supreme Court seemed poised to invalidate Section 2, potentially finalizing its decade-long mission to nullify the Voting Rights Act.
Here's the backstory: Louisiana's post-2020 census redistricting maps sparked controversy. Despite the state's one-third Black population and six House seats, the initial maps included just one majority-Black district, rejecting seven more racially balanced options. Voters took legal action, and federal courts mandated Louisiana to redraw maps, ensuring Black voters' proportional representation in a second district.
But here's where it gets controversial. A group of self-proclaimed 'non-African-American voters' are challenging these new maps, arguing that the Voting Rights Act infringes on their rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments. They claim that the maps, designed to rectify racial discrimination against Black people, actually discriminate against non-Black (white) individuals. And the court seems inclined to agree.
If this happens, it would effectively dismantle the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has been chipping away at this legislation for years. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, the court weakened Section 5, which required regions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to seek federal approval for changes to voting laws.
Since then, the court has consistently limited the grounds for voting rights lawsuits and granted states more freedom to enact laws that would have been considered discriminatory in the past. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Shelby, argued that racial animosity and inequality had decreased, making such measures unnecessary and even infringing on states' rights. However, the aftermath saw a surge in new voting restrictions, leading to a significant increase in the racial gap in voter participation rates, particularly in districts previously subject to Section 5 oversight.
During the recent oral arguments, the court seemed intent on applying the Shelby logic to Section 2. NAACP Legal Defense Fund's leader, Janai Nelson, faced demands to justify Section 2's continued validity. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito suggested that racial gerrymandering was acceptable if it was a byproduct of partisan gerrymandering, prioritizing lawmakers' intentions over the discriminatory impact.
This stance contradicts previous Supreme Court precedents and congressional records, which assert that discriminatory impact alone is sufficient to establish illegal racial discrimination. However, the Republican justices and litigants seemed unconvinced. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a staunch defender of the Reconstruction Amendments and the civil rights movement, passionately rebutted these arguments, but her colleagues appeared unmoved.
The case exemplifies the Roberts Court's dual tendencies: a dismissal of racial justice claims by minorities and a reinterpretation of civil rights law to reinforce historical racial and gender hierarchies. Louisiana's attorney general, switching sides since the case's initial argument, now argues that assuming Black and white voters would choose differently is unconstitutional, despite evidence to the contrary. This argument drew frustration from Justice Kagan.
Chief Justice Roberts has consistently opposed efforts to address historical and ongoing racial discrimination, advocating for race-blind policies in voting rights enforcement and college admissions, despite their real-world discriminatory effects on Black Americans. His famous quote, "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," summarizes his approach. If the court rules for Louisiana, racial gerrymandering to weaken Black voter power will no longer be illegal, while using race to redistrict and empower Black voters will be.
In a twisted turn, Roberts and his colleagues argue that protecting Black Americans' voting rights and equality violates the very constitutional amendments designed to safeguard them. This interpretation suggests that the Voting Rights Act, which enforced the 15th Amendment and fostered democracy in the US for 60 years, is now deemed unconstitutional. This is not just poor reasoning; it's an act of bad faith.
If the Supreme Court rules for the 'non-African-American' voters and eliminates the remaining Voting Rights Act, as anticipated, the decision will likely come in June, just before the November 2026 midterms. This could potentially secure 19 House seats for Republicans, according to estimates.
The impending decision raises crucial questions about the future of racial equality and voting rights in America. Is the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution truly aligned with the principles of democracy and justice? What does this mean for the legacy of the civil rights movement? Share your thoughts and join the discussion below.
