Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has voiced her concerns regarding a recent Supreme Court ruling. This decision involved a Louisiana gerrymandering case that might influence how lower courts interpret the Voting Rights Act, potentially reversing earlier victories for voting rights advocates.
On Monday, the Supreme Court directed that a Mississippi case be reevaluated in federal district court, following the implications of the Louisiana v. Calais ruling that dismissed claims of race-based gerrymandering.
In her dissent, Jackson remarked, “This case only raises the issue of private enforceability of Section 2, which our decision in Louisiana v. Calais does not address. Therefore, we see no basis to set aside the lower court’s judgment,” referring specifically to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Last month, Louisiana v. Calais effectively narrowed the application of Section 2, which governs how states design electoral districts impacting minority voters.
The case centered around the question of whether Louisiana’s new congressional map, which introduced a second majority-black district for 2024, amounted to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
While the justices acknowledged that states could consider adherence to voting rights laws as an important factor in redistricting, they supported lower court rulings that prevented state maps from being used and ruled out the necessity for Louisiana to create an additional majority-black district.
The ruling could lead to a fresh wave of legal disputes over district lines. It appears that proving racially motivated gerrymandering may become more challenging for individuals contesting such maps.
