WASHINGTON – While hearing arguments Wednesday over a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared inclined to limit the law’s ability to force states to draw electoral districts in favor of minority voters.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act specifically prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race; if it were to be done away with, the main way plaintiffs challenge discriminatory election practices would cease to be.
What we know:
The plaintiffs in this case argue that a Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana relies too heavily on race, and therefore has an unconstitutional racial basis, specifically in regard to both the 14th and 15th Amendments. They also argue that the map of this district, drawn specifically to correct a previously discriminatory map, does not follow district drawing standards for compactness.
Addressing civil rights lawyer Janai Nelson during oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh mused over whether it was time to end the use of race-based districts under the Voting Rights Act, rather than “allowing it to extend forever.”
Although the court isn’t expected to rule on the case until June of next year, justices can issue rulings whenever they’re complete, as the Associated Press notes.
A significant shift in the landmark law
Dig deeper:
If the court does in fact strike down the provision, it would represent a significant shift in the landmark law, which was passed in 1965 as a means of undoing “the political hold of Jim Crow policies in the South and related discriminatory structures nationwide,” according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
Such a ruling would make it much more difficult to take race into account when drawing congressional maps. This would, according to the AP, help boost Republican electoral prospects by eliminating Black and Latino districts, which tend to skew Democratic. It would also mean that states would not be bound by any limits in how they draw electoral districts, which would lead to even more extreme partisan gerrymandering.
Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that Alabama was required to draw an extra congressional district to benefit Black voters. Depending on the outcome of the Louisiana case, that decision could be modified or undone depending on the court’s reasoning.
Trump and Prop 50
Big picture view:
This case has come before the Supreme Court amid an ongoing congressional redistricting battle involving President Donald Trump.
Trump has urged GOP-controlled states, such as Texas, to redraw their district lines to ensure that the Republican Party retains its current majority in the House of Representatives once the 2026 midterm elections roll around.
In response, Democratic lawmakers such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have begun fighting fire with fire, as they say. Proposition 50, introduced by Newsom, would authorize California lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional districts, which could in turn deliver several new Democratic seats in the House.
California voters will vote on the proposition on Nov. 4. Former President Barack Obama urged Californians to support Prop 50 earlier this week.
“California, the whole nation is counting on you,” Obama says in a video posted to YouTube. “Democracy is on the ballot.”
Obama added on X earlier this year that although political gerrymandering in the United States shouldn’t exist, he has “tremendous respect for how Gov. Newsom has approached” the issue.
“But since Texas is taking direction from a partisan White House and gerrymandering in the middle of a decade to try and maintain the House despite their unpopular policies…he’s put forward a smart, measured approach in California, designed to address a very particular problem at a very particular moment in time,” he added.
The Source: Information was sourced from the National Archives, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Pew Research Center, The Guardian, YouTube, X and The Associated Press. Additional reporting by Mark Sherman of The Associated Press.
