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.
