Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, ruled that Louisiana’s 2024 election map, which created a second majority-Black congressional district, was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Although the court kept Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act intact, Wednesday’s decision all but guts the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement and protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn.
It isn’t yet clear how the decision will affect November’s midterms. Primaries are well underway in most states.
Once considered the jewel in the crown of the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act has been largely dismembered since 2013 by the increasingly conservative Supreme Court. The major exception was a decision just two years ago that upheld the section of the law aimed at ensuring that minority voters are not shut out of the process of drawing new congressional district lines.
At issue in the case was the redistricting map drawn by the Louisiana legislature after the decennial Census. Following years of litigation, the state, with a 30% Black population, first fought and then finally agreed to draw a second majority-Black district. Two of the state’s six House members are African American.
Normally, that would have been the end of the case, but a self-described group of “non-African-American voters” intervened after the new maps were drawn up to object to the legislature’s redistricting.
The Trump administration supported them, contending that the Black voters should not have gotten a second majority-minority district.
On Friday, the court agreed.
“Correctly understood, Section 2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State’s use of race-based redistricting here.”
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that she dissented “because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”
