Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Comparison of Voting Rights and Accessibility
On Wednesday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a notable comparison regarding the drawing of congressional districts based on racial lines and the improvements in access for individuals with disabilities after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed.
During a discussion, she posed a question to an attorney who represented Louisiana voters, pointing out that the so-called “Section 2 Ideas” of the Voting Rights Act reflect an ongoing response to both historical and current decisions that create disadvantages for minority groups, particularly in their access to voting systems. Jackson referenced the case involving a directive to create a majority-Black district in Louisiana, arguing against the claim that such a measure would violate the 14th Amendment due to its race-focused boundaries.
She stated, “They are disabled,” referring to the barriers faced by minority voters in Louisiana.
Jackson highlighted that in a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the term “disabled” to describe voters who were marginalized by certain procedures that hindered equal access.
“What Congress is saying is that Article II provides the means to address such inequalities, and if they’re happening, we must take action to resolve them,” she contended.
Following the 2020 census, Louisiana’s initial congressional map featured just one majority-Black district. A lower court, however, determined that this map breached Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and mandated a redraw of the state’s congressional boundaries.
About a third of Louisiana’s population is Black, yet only two Democratic legislators represent districts with a Black majority.
“The ADA is a classic example of this,” Jackson noted. She drew parallels between the judicial remedy ordered in this case and the influential civil rights law established in 1990 to promote accessibility.
She elaborated that the ADA arose from a society where individuals with disabilities largely lacked access to public buildings, creating an inherently discriminatory situation, regardless of the intentions of building owners or constructors. “It’s not about intent; it’s about ensuring equal access where possible,” she said.
Jackson expressed confusion over the lack of similar accessibility for minority voters in Louisiana, questioning, “Why isn’t that happening here?”
In the background, attorney Garrett Graeme, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the remedial actions to comply with the Voting Rights Act were based on oversimplified assumptions regarding minority voters. He said that solutions under the ADA are not one-size-fits-all.
Graeme maintained his stance, stating that remedies shouldn’t necessarily be based on race, to which Jackson acknowledged, “But if inaccessibility is race-related, then that’s problematic because it limits solutions.”
Graeme countered, asserting that linking race to voter categories and expectations could lead to stereotyping. “That’s the issue here—something absent in other civil rights laws,” he added.
Throughout the hearing, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court hinted at the possibility of curtailing race as a determining factor for setting congressional district boundaries.
A decision on this case is anticipated by June of next year.
