Supreme Court, in an unexpected decisionruled Thursday that Alabama reduced the power of black voters by drawing a congressional election map with a single county in which they had a majority.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in a 5 of 4 ruling, which asked the State Legislature to draw a second district in which Black voters had the opportunity to elect the representatives of their choice. He was joined by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and three liberal members of the court, Judges Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Voting rights advocates feared the decision would further undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark legislative achievement of the civil rights movement whose conservative majority approach of the court has been eroded in recent years. Instead, the law appears to be unscathed from its latest encounter with the court.
The chief justice wrote that there are legitimate concerns that the law “could unacceptably elevate the distribution of political power within the states.” He added: “Our opinion today does not diminish or downplay these concerns. It simply asserts that the honest application of our precedents and a fair reading of records before we do not present them here.”
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a scathing protest. The majority approach, he wrote, “does not remedy or prevent unconstitutional discrimination in the division of the region of any kind.”
He added: “On the contrary, it requires it, hijacking the zoning process in pursuit of an objective that is not legitimately required under our constitutional system: the distribution of political power: proportional treatment on the basis of race.”
In general, he writes, the majority ruled that “that race belongs to almost every region that redistributes the region.”
Judge Thomas’ bitter tone showed deep disappointment for Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Kavanaugh as well as deep regret for a missed opportunity. Judges Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined all or most of Judge Thomas’ dissent.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that “the authority to institute redistricting based on race cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”
Judge Thomas replied that his colleague had nonetheless voted “to maintain an institutionalized system of segregation in the district—under the auspices of a nationwide law.” and has no expiration date – and thus prolong the long-term harm to our society caused by the use of racial segregation in the allocation of political power.
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland welcomed the ruling. “Today’s decision rejects attempts to further undermine fundamental suffrage protections and upholds the principle that in the United States, all eligible voters must be able to exercise their right to vote. constitutionally vote without discrimination on the basis of their race,” he said in a statement. .
The incident is part of a bitter battle over regional redistricting going on around the country. Civil rights leaders say the process of redistricting the region often works to the detriment of developing minority communities. Republican state officials say the Constitution allows only a limited role in considering race in determining voting districts.
The case began after Alabama’s Legislature, controlled by Republicans, redrawn the congressional map to account for the 2020 census.
The state has seven constituencies and the state’s voting age population is approximately 27% Black. The new map maintains a single district in which Black voters are in the majority.
That county has long elected one Democrat, while the other six counties in the state are represented by Republicans.
After Black voters and advocacy groups protested the map under the Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 to protect minority voters, a three-judge panel of the Federal District Court The state of Birmingham agreed. judge that legislature should have created a second district “where Black voters make up the majority of voting age or something pretty close to it.”
The unsigned decision was joined by Judge Stanley Marcus, who normally sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton; and by Judge Anna M. Manasco And Terry F. Moorerare all appointed by President Donald J. Trump.
The board found that voting in the state was racially polarized and could draw up a “reasonably configured second precinct” to allow Black voters to elect their favorite candidates.
The court relied on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids any voting procedure that “results in the denial or shortening of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on the grounds of race race.” That so happens, the clause continues, when “based on the totality of circumstances,” racial minorities “have less opportunity than other members of the constituency to participate in the political process and elect the representatives they choose.”
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the lower court got things right. “We see no reason to disturb the careful factual findings of the district court,” he wrote.
Justice Thomas wrote that according to the lower court approach, “Section 2 is nothing more than a racial right that is roughly controlled in proportion to elected bodies—limited only by feasibility — wherever different racial groups favor different candidates.”
“If that’s what Section 2 means, the courts should consider it unconstitutional,” he added.
Even when Judge Thomas described the majority view as transformative, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the view was merely maintaining the status quo. “The focus in these cases is not on the law as it is,” he wrote. “It’s about Alabama’s attempt to remake our Part 2 legislation again.”
Last year, the Supreme Court Temporarily blocked lower court ruling by a 5 to 4 vote, ensuring that the 2022 election will take place using the Legislature’s map, which has a single district where Da voters Black is the majority.
Justice Kavanaugh voted with a majority at the time, saying the lower court acted too close to the election. “I take no position at this time on the ultimate merits of the parties’ underlying legal dispute,” he wrote.
Chief Justice Roberts disagreed at the time, though he said the court precedents “have caused considerable disagreement and uncertainty about the nature and contours of a vote-dilution request.” .” That statement suggested he was prepared to revisit those precedents. Instead, on Thursday, he let them stand.
Earlier Supreme Court decisions cut down on other parts of the Voting Rights Act.
In 2013, at Shelby County v. Holdercourt effective bowel movements Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, requires federal approval of changes to state and local voting laws in parts of the country with a history of racial segregation. But that ruling assures the public that Section 2 of the law will be upheld to protect the right to vote by allowing post-event litigation.
In 2021, at Brnovich sued the Democratic National Committeecourt cuts on Section 2 of the law, limiting the ability of minorities to challenge voting restrictions.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said Thursday’s decision, Allen v. Milligan, number 21-1086must be understood in the context of recent Supreme Court decisions on abortion and guns and an upcoming decision that is likely to limit affirmative action in higher education.
Professor Hasen said: “It would be an earthquake if the courts read Part 2 as the dissidents will, severely reducing the representation of minority voters in Congress, state houses. and the town hall,” said Professor Hasen. “Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the libertarians in maintaining the status quo not only helps minority voters, but it also helps the court’s fragile legitimacy in the face of judgments. decisions and this other moral scandal.”
