“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Louisiana adopted a congressional redistricting plan that created a second majority-minority district to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). A three-judge court ruled the plan unconstitutional, and the case was considered by the Supreme Court.
What happened in this case?
After Louisiana redrew its congressional districting map in 2022, a district court ruled that it probably violated Section 2 of the VRA because it did not include a second majority-minority district in light of population changes and other factors. The state redrew the map and added a second majority-minority district, but then that map was challenged as a racial gerrymander, and a three-judge court struck it down for that reason. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 decision by Justice Alito in April, the Court majority, including all three Trump justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett) affirmed the lower court and ruled the state’s revised map is unconstitutional. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissented in the decision in Louisiana v Callais.
What was the rationale of Justice Alito and the other justices in the majority?
According to Justice Alito, Louisiana’s initial 2022 redrawing of its maps did not violate section 2 of the VRA because the evidence did not show that it “intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.” Accordingly, he went on, it was improper to redraw the district map to create a second majority-minority district, and it violated the Fifteenth Amendment to intentionally use race as a factor to redraw district lines to create a second majority-minority district. He claimed that this conclusion did not reflect the overruling of section 2 or the factors derived from the landmark Gingles decision that interpreted it, but simply reflected an effort to “update” the Gingles test to reflect “important developments” since then, such as the use of computers to draw maps.
Why did Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissent?
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, strongly dissented. They contended that the ruling reflected the culmination of a series of rulings by the majority that has now completed the “demolition” of the VRA and the rendering of section 2 into a “dead letter.” Her primary critique was that the majority had contradicted the central intent of the 1982 VRA amendments to eliminate the requirement that plaintiffs prove discriminatory intent, and instead impose liability based on the discriminatory effect of government actions. In effect, she wrote, the Court majority has now “overturned Congress’ studied determination “ on how to “rectify racial inequalities” in voting.
Why is the Court’s ruling harmful?
The decision made possible by the three Trump justices eliminates a majority-minority congressional district in Louisiana and harms the rights of minority voters there. It also makes it much easier for other states to dilute minority voting strength. As voting expert Rick Hasen has written, the ruling is a “disaster for minority representation” and is likely to cause the “biggest reduction in the number of minority legislators since at least the end of Reconstruction.”. It makes congressional passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act more important than ever. It also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.