Supreme Court Signals Potential Weakening of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana Redistricting Case
The Supreme Court appeared deeply divided Wednesday during oral arguments in a case concerning Louisiana’s congressional map, signaling a potential further weakening of the voting Rights Act. The case centers on whether Louisiana must maintain a second majority-Black congressional district,a provision advocates argue is crucial for Black voter depiction.
Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, representing the state, argued before the court that Black voters should not be guaranteed a second majority-minority district, stating that if the population were entirely white, such a district wouldn’t be considered.This argument drew sharp questioning from the court’s liberal justices, who highlighted the deeply racially polarized voting patterns in Louisiana, where even white Democrats largely do not vote for Black candidates.
However, conservative justices appeared receptive to the state’s position. Justice Samuel alito suggested that seeking a partisan advantage in redistricting is distinct from seeking a racial advantage.Janai Nelson, representing the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, countered that using race to achieve partisan gain is unconstitutional, emphasizing the extreme racial polarization in Louisiana’s voting behavior – exceeding 84%, meaning only 16% of white voters support Black candidates.
The case also revisited the question of whether racial remedies in voting rights should have an end date. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who previously sided with the majority in a similar Alabama case, reiterated his belief that such remedies should not be indefinite. Nelson responded that Congress intentionally omitted a time limit on this specific provision of the Voting rights act, and that the Fifteenth Amendment‘s non-discrimination clause also lacks a temporal restriction.
Justices explored the potential consequences of limiting the redistricting provision.Nelson warned that nullifying or restricting the provision would be “catastrophic,” possibly jeopardizing the seats held by African American House members across the South who were elected due to the creation of majority-minority districts.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the “breathing room” allowed in the statute unintentionally discriminates based on race. Nelson maintained it does not, and is intended to eliminate districts designed to dilute the Black vote.
Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga argued that “race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed Aguinaga on a seeming shift in his position, noting he previously defended the creation of the majority-Black district in a prior appearance before the court. He did not directly address the question.
A swift ruling from the Court could lead to the elimination of Louisiana’s second majority-Black district before the next congressional election.Election law experts suggest a ruling against the current interpretation of the voting Rights Act could result in Democrats losing as many as 19 congressional seats. the Supreme Court’s decision will ultimately determine the future of minority representation in Louisiana and potentially across the South.
