Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act
Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court seems ready to impose stricter controls on the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by federal courts, which could protect state lawmakers from challenges that mix race and partisanship in the redistricting process.
The impending decision carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations cautioning 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.
In the re-arguments of Louisiana v. Callais, a conservative majority expressed a willingness to consider an approach supported by the Trump Justice Department.
This could complicate the ability of plaintiffs to succeed in claims of racial vote dilution in areas where voting patterns closely mirror party affiliations—a defining characteristic of contemporary Southern politics.
The situation arises from Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which a federal district court has found likely to violate Section 2 by funneling Black voters—who represent approximately one-third of the state’s population—into a single majority-Black district out of a total of six.
In 2024, lawmakers took action by adopting a remedial plan that established a second district of this kind. However, white voters took legal action, claiming that the adjustments constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and a district judge ruled in their favor.
The case, initially presented last March, has returned, as the justices have requested new briefs regarding the constitutionality of Section 2.
Last summer, Louisiana changed its position, now advocating for the Court to restrict or abolish race-conscious districting. Black voters who launched the initial challenge stood by the remedial map, asserting that it effectively addresses the documented dilution of minority voting power.
Conservative justices displayed hesitation to completely overturn Section 2, a provision established in 1965 and reinforced in 1982 to prevent practices that deny minorities equal access to the electoral process.
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.
Nineteen of these changes are directly tied to the potential loss of Section 2 protections.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court ruling, there’s now a push in some states to consider creating their own version of a “Voting Rights Act.”
Missouri Sues To End Counting Of Illegal Aliens In Census, Wants Recount
Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced Friday that the state, along with several individual plaintiffs, has filed suit against the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau seeking to end the counting of illegal aliens in the census and force a recount of the 2020 Census and 2021 congressional apportionment.
In a press release, Hanaway described the lawsuit as a major constitutional challenge to how federal representation is calculated.
“To defend our fundamental right to representation in government, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed the most significant election lawsuit in a generation,” the release
stated. “This first-in-the-nation suit was filed against the United States Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau for unconstitutionally allowing illegal aliens to commandeer the path to the White House and compromise our elections.”
“The State of Missouri and its voters can no longer ignore the ongoing denial of their right to self-government and fair representation,” Hanaway said. “United States citizens and lawful permanent residents have a right to representation, unlike illegal aliens and temporary visa holders. In America, the People, the members of the social compact, are the only legitimate source of the government’s power. We are taking a stand against those who are cheating our system.”
The lawsuit argues that the current policy of counting illegal aliens in census tabulations is unlawful and unconstitutional. Hanaway is asking the court to order a recount of the 2020 Census and prohibit the inclusion of illegal aliens in future census apportionments.
The 96-page complaint names the U.S. Department of Commerce, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the U.S. Census Bureau, and Acting Census Bureau Director George Cook as defendants.
According to the complaint, federal representation is being shifted away from states that enforce immigration laws and toward sanctuary states.
“Attorney General Hanaway will not allow open border states like California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland to steal an estimated 11 congressional seats, 11 electoral votes, and billions of dollars in funding,” the release said.
The lawsuit argues that the policy of counting illegal aliens in the census dates back to a unilateral decision by the Carter administration prior to the 1980 Census.
Hanaway’s office said the framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for illegal aliens or temporary visa holders to be counted for congressional representation.
“They could never have imagined an absurd system where millions of illegal alien trespassers would receive representation in Congress and the Electoral College,” the release stated.
The filing also points to actions taken during the Trump administration.
In July 2020, Donald Trump issued a memorandum directing the Secretary of Commerce to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base, even though they were still counted in the raw census data.
California and New York immediately challenged the order in court.
While the Supreme Court ultimately vacated the injunctions blocking Trump’s policy, the resulting delays allowed the Biden administration to reverse course and include illegal aliens in the 2021 apportionment.
The lawsuit argues that if Trump’s policy had been implemented, Missouri would have gained an additional congressional seat and an extra vote in the Electoral College.
“Instead, the Biden administration hijacked the representation of Missourians by reversing the Trump administration’s action,” the filing states.
May you like
Because the lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of congressional apportionment, it is expected to be heard by a three-judge panel under federal law.
The complaint asks the court to declare that including illegal aliens and temporary visa holders in the 2020 Census and 2021 apportionment violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act.
