CIV

Voting Rights ⁢Act Faces Critical Test at Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, Feb 21 – The landmark ​Voting Rights Act of 1965 is confronting a possibly fatal challenge at the Supreme Court, as justices⁢ hear arguments in Allen v. ‍Milligan concerning Alabama’s congressional map. The case centers on whether Alabama’s map‌ unlawfully diminishes the voting power of Black residents, and the outcome could substantially⁤ weaken a key provision ⁤of the voting rights law used to combat racial discrimination.

The dispute revolves around Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or ‌procedures that result in a denial ‌or abridgement of the‌ right of any‌ citizen to ⁢vote on‌ account of race or color. At issue⁤ is whether Alabama’s map, drawn after the 2020 census, violates this provision by failing to create ‌a second congressional district where Black voters would have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate. A⁢ ruling against Alabama‌ could​ force the state to redraw its map and potentially open the door to similar challenges in othre Southern⁣ states, impacting the balance ⁣of power in Congress.

The case arrives amid growing concerns about voting access and fairness,especially following a 2013 ⁣Supreme ‍Court decision (Shelby County v. ‌Holder) that struck down⁤ a key preclearance formula in‌ the Voting Rights‌ Act. That ruling removed federal ⁣oversight of election laws⁢ in states with a history of discrimination, a change ⁤critics argue has led ⁣to a resurgence of restrictive voting practices. ​

Plaintiffs⁣ argue​ that Alabama’s map packs Black voters into a single district, diluting their influence in surrounding districts. Thay point to the state’s demographics‌ – roughly 27% of alabama’s population is Black – and ‍contend that⁣ two majority-Black⁣ districts are reasonably achievable. “The state of Alabama has consistently refused to recognise the political ⁢power of its ‍Black citizens,” said Evan Milligan,the lead plaintiff in the case,in a statement.

Alabama defends its map, arguing it complies with conventional redistricting principles‍ and that creating a second ⁢majority-Black district would require unconstitutional ⁣racial gerrymandering. Solicitor General ​Edmund LaCour Jr. told the court that ​the⁢ plaintiffs’ proposed map would ⁣”sort voters by race” and that the Voting Rights Act does not require states to maximize the number of majority-minority districts.

Legal experts predict a closely divided court, with the outcome potentially hinging on the views of Justice⁤ Brett Kavanaugh. A ​decision is expected by late June. If ⁣the Court sides with ‍Alabama, it could significantly narrow the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, making it more arduous to challenge discriminatory voting maps ‍in the ‍future. Conversely, a ruling ⁤in favor of ⁢the plaintiffs would reaffirm the importance of protecting minority voting rights and could trigger a⁢ wave of‌ redistricting litigation across the South.