Democrats are quite anxious as the Supreme Court appears ready to reconsider a doctrine that has long interpreted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This doctrine has allowed states to gerrymander House seats allegedly based on racial discrimination.
While Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination due to race or color, courts have often referenced other parts of the act to enforce what are known as “majority-minority” districts.
Based on this week’s oral arguments in the case of Louisiana v. Calais, it seems likely that the Court might end or at least significantly restrict this mandate.
On the upside, as Chief Justice John Roberts noted in another case, “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Essentially, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Whether that strategy was wise back in the day is up for debate. The America of 1965 was markedly different, with laws actively preventing African Americans from voting, and creating minority and majority districts seemed like a fair approach to guarantee representation for African Americans.
At that time, about 85% of the country was white. Today, it’s closer to 58%, and societal attitudes have shifted significantly. Discriminatory voting laws are now a thing of the past, alongside other forms of institutionalized discrimination.
Interestingly, it’s become common for districts to elect representatives who don’t match the racial composition of their majority.
For instance, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) represents a district that is 60% white, while Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) sits in a district that is only 20% black. Similarly, Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) is a white representative elected in a majority-black district, and Congressman Byron Donald (R-Florida) is a black man from a predominantly white district.
This pattern extends to regions with large Asian American and Latino populations as well.
While Democrats express concern, it’s uncertain whether ending racial gerrymandering will lead to a clear partisan shift. It might actually foster more competitive districts, potentially resulting in better representation for all voters within those areas.
It’s essential to note that the imposition of racially based districting stemmed from court decisions rather than laws passed by Congress. A judge could very well rectify a perceived injustice that another judge previously instituted.
