The US Supreme Court has ruled that Louisiana must redraw its congressional electoral map, a landmark decision that effectively neutralises Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the last powerful provision of the civil rights law designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
In a 6-3 ruling divided along ideological lines, the court's conservative majority held that compliance with Section 2 did not justify the state's use of race-based redistricting. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated: "Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context." He described the attempt to satisfy the lower court's directive as "an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."
The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, accused the majority of "demolishing" the Voting Rights Act. Kagan wrote that under the court's new interpretation, a state can "systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power" without legal consequence, rendering Section 2 "all but a dead letter." She warned that districts which have historically provided minority voters, particularly African Americans, with a meaningful political voice now exist "only on sufferance."
The case, Louisiana v Callais, concerned how much consideration of race is permissible when drawing district boundaries. After initially hearing arguments in March, the court took the unusual step of requesting re-argument to consider whether Section 2 itself was constitutional. Although the majority stopped short of declaring it unconstitutional, it significantly revised the three-part test plaintiffs must pass, now requiring proof of intentional racial discrimination – a much heavier burden.
Legal scholars criticised the decision. Richard Hasen of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the ruling is "out of line with text" and with the history of Section 2, noting that Congress amended the law in 1982 to clarify that proving intentional discrimination was not necessary. The decision may prompt states to redraw district maps before this year's midterm elections; asked whether states should do so, Donald Trump replied: "I would."
