\n<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s voting map, finding that lawmakers illegally used race when drawing a new majority-Black district and potentially setting off a scramble in the middle of primary season as the state considers drawing new maps.<\/p>\n
The decision was 6 versus 3, divided along ideological lines. The conservative majority claimed that Opinion<\/a> There was a limited decision that preserved the central principle of the Voting Rights Act, but the liberal wing of the court dissented, arguing that the justices had taken the final step in dismantling a landmark civil rights law.<\/p>\n In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the court had upheld the Voting Rights Act but that Louisiana’s new majority-minority district violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.<\/p>\n For decades, under the Voting Rights Act, lawmakers have drawn districts where non-white voters are in the majority to protect their ability to elect candidates of their choice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n But Justice Alito said that “broad social changes”, particularly in the South, including increased voter registration and turnout by minorities, showed that such views were no longer necessary.<\/p>\n Instead, he wrote that the justices were updating a 40-year-old framework that courts look to to evaluate the use of race in drawing congressional districts, essentially saying that the Voting Rights Act only prevents lawmakers from drawing maps that would intentionally limit the power of minority voters.<\/p>\n Now, Justice Alito wrote, to successfully challenge district maps under the Voting Rights Act, challengers would need to show evidence supporting “a strong conclusion” that a state “intentionally drew its districts to provide fewer opportunities to minority voters because of their race.” A legal challenge that “cannot separate race from the state’s race-neutral considerations, including politics,” will fail.<\/p>\n Justice Alito said the new framework “reflects significant developments” since the Court set out factors for evaluating the use of race in voting maps in 1986, writing that in the decades that followed, “racial differences in voter registration and turnout” had largely disappeared.<\/p>\n Justice Elena Kagan dissented, saying that the practical effect of the decision would make it nearly impossible to use race when drawing voting maps, writing that “the Court’s decision will set back the fundamental right granted by Congress to racial equality in electoral opportunity.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Justice Kagan read her dissent from the bench, a rare move that often signals a justice’s strong displeasure with a decision.<\/p>\n The decision will give Republicans a boost ahead of the midterm elections, although it was not immediately clear how much they would benefit.<\/p>\n Coming midway through the primary calendar, there were still several states that could draw new maps citing Wednesday’s decision. Republicans in Florida moved quickly after the announcement: The state legislature approved a new map on Wednesday. Louisiana will likely lose a Democratic district when it finalizes its new map.<\/p>\n Any map that eliminates majority-minority districts and is drawn in the wake of the decision will likely be challenged in court \u2014 possibly leading to a new wave of litigation.<\/p>\n Representative Cleo Fields, whose district is at the center of the Supreme Court case, said in a statement that “the practical effect is to make it more difficult for minority communities to challenge redistricting maps that weaken their political voice.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Mr. Fields, a Democrat, cautioned against immediately redrawing the maps before the November election, and promised to \u201cevaluate all available legislative responses to this decision and restore full protections.\u201d<\/p>\n Got a news tip about the courts?<\/span> If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please contact us.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n Janai S., president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund. Nelson said the court technically stopped short of striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act \u2013 an outcome he and others considered a possible “worst-case scenario.”<\/p>\n Nevertheless, he said the decision would have a devastating impact. “What the court did was equally damaging and even more misleading,” he said, adding that he believed the majority was politically motivated. \u201cThis is the day for the loss of any vestige or modicum of credibility of this Supreme Court to rise above partisan politics.\u201d<\/p>\n Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, praised the decision in a statement, saying the court “ends Louisiana’s long-running nightmare of federal courts forcing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map.”<\/p>\n Ms. Murrill called it \u201ca seismic decision affirming equal protection under the laws of our country,\u201d and said she would work with the state governor and legislature to produce a \u201cconstitutionally compliant\u201d map.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The Trump administration also celebrated this decision. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called the decision “a complete and utter victory for the American voters.”<\/p>\n \u201cThe color of one\u2019s skin should not determine which congressional district you belong to,\u201d Ms. Jackson said. \u201cWe applaud the court for ending unconstitutional abuses of the Voting Rights Act and protecting civil rights.\u201d<\/p>\n Wednesday’s decision is the latest in a series of rulings by judges that have weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965, often considered the crown jewel of civil rights-era laws.<\/p>\n