Former President Barack Obama was among several liberals who voted against the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss a case regarding unconstitutional racial gerrymandering in Louisiana.
These critics view the ruling primarily as detrimental to the representation of racial minorities in American politics. Their concerns seem to focus more on the ruling’s potential implications for the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm elections.
Background
Lousiana’s 2020 agreement led to a new congressional map, which then-House Speaker pro tempore Tanner McGee (R) claimed adhered to “traditional boundaries.”
Critics called it “one of the most significant and devastating decisions handed down by the Supreme Court in the 21st century.”
A group of black voters, frustrated that only one of the state’s six congressional districts had a majority black population, sued the state. They argued that the updated 2022 congressional map undermined black voting power and violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
A federal judge, appointed by Obama, ruled that the map likely violated the VRA, directing the Louisiana Legislature to create a majority-black 2nd District.
The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals supported this judgment and proposed a map that included the second largest majority black district. However, this triggered a legal challenge from “non-African American” voters who claimed the new map constituted racial gerrymandering and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case, Louisiana vs. Curry, eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that “Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create additional majority-minority districts, there was no compelling interest to justify the state’s use of race in creating SB 8, and the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
In a 6-3 ruling, the court not only dismissed the racial gerrymandering claims but clarified the extent to which compliance with the Voting Rights Act could justify race-based districting.
Justice Samuel Alito, in the court’s opinion, wrote that interpreting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a way that prohibits maps lacking a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create rights not protected by the Amendment, contradicting the Act’s explicit disclaimer against racial proportionality.
He also stated that liability under Article II arises only when there’s strong evidence of intentional district manipulation meant to diminish opportunities for minority voters.
Although the explanation seemed aimed at guiding states on complying with Section 2 of the VRA without racial discrimination, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, cautioned that the ruling may negatively affect “racial equality in voting opportunities.”
“The consequences are likely to be extensive and meaningful. Today’s decision effectively undermines Article II,” Kagan remarked.
“If other states mirror Louisiana’s approach, minority populations might lose equal chances to elect their preferred candidates, resulting in a significant decline in minority representation in government.”
Alito dismissed Kagan’s dissent, claiming it “blatantly contradicts key precedent.”
Reactions
Obama, a supporter of Virginia’s recent, legally questionable gerrymandering, commented that the Supreme Court’s decision “effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act.” He argued that this ruling allows state legislatures to systematically dilute the voting power of racial minorities under the pretext of “partisanship.”
He accused the court’s conservative majority of failing in its duty to ensure equal participation in democracy and protect minority rights. He warned that the ruling might affect future midterm elections.
Obama acknowledged that “setbacks can be overcome,” but emphasized the need for people committed to democratic values to vote in large numbers.
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris also expressed her outrage, labeling the ruling “an outrageous act” that reverses the pledge of equality and fairness in the electoral system, characterizing it as part of a long-term conservative strategy to undermine power from ordinary citizens.
She echoed Obama’s concern regarding midterm elections and the likelihood of red states rushing to redraw district maps before voting starts.
New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani expressed his frustration online, declaring the ruling a “direct attack on the promises of the Voting Rights Act” and asserting that it puts millions of Americans at risk of disenfranchisement based on race.
Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York commented that her district needs more immigrants to bolster its population before redistricting in 2021. She, along with other Congressional Black Caucus members, stated that the court effectively “signed the death certificate of the Voting Rights Act,” undoing decades of progress for Black Americans.
They pointed out that such systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters hasn’t been seen since the Jim Crow era.
Stacey Abrams, a former Democratic gubernatorial candidate and founder of a voting group, remarked that the ruling is a “direct blow” to the idea that every American’s vote should hold equal significance.
Kristen Clark, General Counsel for the NAACP, conveyed that the decision is “one of the most significant and devastating handed down by the Supreme Court in this century.” She warned that it would empower legislators in former slaveholding states to dismantle districts that allowed Black Americans a fair chance to elect their representatives.
Alana Odoms, the executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, characterized the ruling as “cruel” and a substantial setback for multiracial democracy.
Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat who benefited from previously gerrymandered maps, criticized the ruling but suggested it may not be wise for Louisiana to create new maps right now.
