Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act

In reference to the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which prevented federal courts from intervening in partisan gerrymandering, Mooppan contended that states could justify their maps by citing valid partisan objectives, even when these objectives intersect with racial demographics.

This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths, for example, without violating Section 2, provided the intent isn’t solely racial.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the 2023 Allen v. Milligan ruling that requires the establishment of a second majority-Black district in Alabama, examined whether this framework is consistent with Allen and the Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles criteria.

The test mandates that plaintiffs demonstrate a minority group is not only sizable and cohesive but also experiences majority bloc voting that undermines their electoral candidates. Roberts appeared focused on aligning the proposal with established norms, steering clear of a complete transformation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an influential voice in the Allen case alongside Roberts and the liberal justices, raised the possibility of a “sunset” clause for Section 2 remedies, referencing precedents that restrict race-based policies to temporary solutions.

Voting rights organizations aligned with the Democratic Party are already warning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.

Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund argue that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is invalidated, it could significantly increase the likelihood of Republicans maintaining control over the House of Representatives for years.

Research has identified 27 congressional seats nationwide that could be redrawn to benefit Republicans, contingent on the current legal and political landscape remaining unchanged.Continue reading…