Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Ruling

Justice Clarence Thomas suggested on Wednesday that the Supreme Court should take an even bolder stance regarding its recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act. He described the law’s main anti-discrimination measures as divisive and advocated against their use in redistricting cases.

“As I noted over 30 years ago, I would go further and state that: [section two] ‘The Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all,’” Thomas expressed in a concurrence alongside Justice Neil Gorsuch.

These comments are part of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Calais, which validated a ruling deeming one of Louisiana’s majority Black congressional districts an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

This ruling has significant implications, as it narrows the interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This historical law was established to eliminate race-based voting practices. While the decision already restricts states from considering race when drawing majority-minority districts, Thomas went further, asserting that the law should simply not apply to redistricting cases.

In his comments, he stated, “Today’s decision is a step toward correcting a ‘terrible misfortune’ in voting rights jurisprudence,” referring to a quote from a 1994 consent agreement.

Thomas emphasized that the Court’s earlier interpretation of Section 2 has prompted states to create maps that discriminate based on race. He argued that provisions of Article II should not be involved in map-related legal disputes, as they pertain specifically to ballot access and voting procedures—not district line drawing.

As an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, Thomas has consistently argued for repealing parts of the Voting Rights Act. He noted previously, in a 1994 case called Holder v. Hall, that using Section 2 to claim redistricting dilutes minority votes is a misinterpretation of the law.

“The assumptions leading to a dilution of our votes should be unacceptable in any nation aiming for a color-blind constitution,” he remarked back then.

Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion aligned with Thomas’ view, indicating that while the Voting Rights Act may necessitate considering race, Louisiana isn’t obligated to establish additional majority Black districts. Alito stated that he found “no compelling interest” in Louisiana’s efforts to concentrate Black voters into particular districts.

This case emerged from Louisiana’s redistricting post-2020 census, where the state introduced a second majority Black district after a lower court ruling deemed it a requirement of the Voting Rights Act. However, this new map was later invalidated as a racial gerrymander, leading to further legal challenges up to the Supreme Court.

A dissenting opinion from Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, expressed concern that the majority ruling and Thomas’ strict viewpoint compromise protections against voter dilution for minorities. Kagan stated, “This decision essentially treats Section 2 as a mere afterthought.”

She was clear in her criticism, arguing that under the Court’s revised interpretation of Article II, states could effectively undermine minority voting rights with little fear of facing legal consequences.