Supreme Court rules in favor of Black voters
WASHINGTON>> The Supreme Court, in a surprise decision, ruled Thursday that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters by drawing a congressional voting map, reaffirming a landmark civil rights law that had been thought to be in peril
Chief Justice John Roberts, who often has voted to restrict voting rights and is generally skeptical of raceconscious decision making by the government, wrote the majority opinion in the 5- 4 ruling, stunning election law experts. In agreeing that race may play a role in redistricting, the chief justice was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Voting rights advocates had feared that the decision would further undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a central legislative achievement of the civil rights movement whose reach the court’s conservative majority has eroded in recent years. Instead, the law appeared to emerge unscathed from its latest encounter with the court.
The case concerned a voting map redrawn by Republican lawmakers after the 2020 census, leaving only one majority Black congressional district in a state with seven districts and a Black voting-age population that had grown to about 26%.
The impact of the decision, which required the Legislature to draw a second district in which Black voters have the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, will not be limited to Alabama. Other states in the South, notably Louisiana and Georgia, also may have to redraw their maps to bolster Black voting power, which could, among other things, help Democrats in their efforts to retake the House.
The chief justice wrote that there were legitimate concerns that the law “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the states.” He added: “Our opinion today does not diminish or disregard these concerns. It simply holds that a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record before us do not bear them out here.”
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a slashing dissent. The majority’s approach, he wrote, “does not remedy or deter unconstitutional discrimination in districting in any way, shape or form.”
“On the contrary,” he added, “it requires it, hijacking the districting process to pursue a goal that has no legitimate claim under our constitutional system: the proportional allocation of political power on the basis of race.”
In all, he wrote, the majority ruled “that race belongs in virtually every redistricting.”
Thomas’ bitter tone suggested deep disappointment with Roberts and Kavanaugh and profound regret over a missed opportunity. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined all or large parts of Thomas’ dissent.
In a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh wrote that it was possible that “the authority to conduct racebased redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”