The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down a Louisiana congressional map that added a majority-Black congressional district. The decision limits the extent of the Voting Rights Act for how states may draw districts affecting minority voters.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it.”
“Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s [Section 2] precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids,” he wrote, going on to explain that complying with Section 2 can “provide a compelling reason for race-based districting,” but it “does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map.”
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “consequences” of the ruling are “likely to be far-reaching and grave.”
“After today, those districts exist only on sufferance, and probably not for long,” she wrote. “If other States follow Louisiana’s lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And minority representation in government institutions will sharply decline.”
In October, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry (R) wrote for Breitbart the case “could be the most consequential redistricting decision in a generation,” explaining that it is “not just about political maps; it is also about who governs: the states and their elected representatives, or federal courts enforcing outdated racial targets from 40 years ago.”
