Current:Home > ScamsSupreme Court rules against Alabama in high-stakes Voting Rights Act case-DB Wealth Institute B2 Expert Reviews
Supreme Court rules against Alabama in high-stakes Voting Rights Act case
View Date:2025-01-11 09:41:30
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated a congressional map drawn by state lawmakers in Alabama after the 2020 Census, finding the state's redistricting plan for its seven House seats likely violated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court declined to accept far-reaching arguments from Republican officials in Alabama that would have made it more difficult to challenge congressional and state legislative maps that dilute the power of minority voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in the majority, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.
The ruling in favor of a group of Black voters who challenged the lawfulness of the congressional voting lines came as a surprise, given that the high court has chipped away at the Voting Rights Act in a string of decisions under Roberts, most notably in 2013.
But in its decision in the case known as Allen v. Milligan, the 5-4 court declined to further weaken the landmark law, and instead affirmed a lower court opinion that found it substantially likely that Alabama's map violated Section 2. The lower court ordered Alabama state lawmakers to redraw its congressional map to include a second district that gave Black voters equal opportunity to elect their favored candidate, as required by the Voting Rights Act.
"We find Alabama's new approach to [Section 2] compelling neither in theory nor in practice," Roberts wrote. "We accordingly decline to recast our [Section 2] case law as Alabama requests."
The chief justice acknowledged the "concern that [the statute] may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the states," and said the Supreme Court's ruling "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," Roberts concluded.
In his dissent, Thomas said the majority decision "fossilize[s] all of the worst aspects of our long-deplorable vote-dilution jurisprudence."
"It goes out of its way to reaffirm [Section 2's] applicability to single-member districting plans both as a purported original matter and on highly exaggerated stare decisis grounds," he said. "It virtually ignores Alabama's primary argument—that, whatever the benchmark is, it must be race neutral — choosing, instead, to quixotically joust with an imaginary adversary."
Attorney General Merrick Garland praised the Supreme Court's decision and reiterated the Biden administration's commitment to protecting voting rights.
"Today's decision rejects efforts to further erode fundamental voting rights protections, and preserves the principle that in the United States, all eligible voters must be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote free from discrimination based on their race," he said in a statement. "The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, the right from which all other rights ultimately flow."
Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen said he is "disappointed" in the opinion.
The fight over Alabama's congressional map
The dispute arrived at the Supreme Court after the 2020 redistricting cycle, which led the state's GOP-controlled legislature to enact new lines for Alabama's seven congressional districts. Under the original map, there was one district — the 7th —with a majority of Black voters, which state Republicans said was consistent with each of Alabama's congressional redistricting plans since 1992.
But a group of Black voters and voting rights groups challenged the boundaries under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any voting procedure that abridges or denies the right to vote "on account of race." Under the law, a violation of Section 2 occurs when, "based on the totality of circumstances," members of a protected class "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice."
The challengers argued the redistricting plan diluted the power of Black voters by preventing them from electing their preferred candidates in all but one congressional district.
A unanimous federal district court panel of three judges found it substantially likely that the map violated Section 2 and blocked Alabama from using the redistricting plan during the 2022 midterm elections.
But Alabama GOP officials sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, and the high court voted 5-4 in February 2022 to put the district court's decision on hold and take up the dispute. Roberts joined the three liberal members of the court in dissent.
The November midterm elections were held under the original map, and the state's delegation has one Democrat, Rep. Terri Sewell. Black Alabamians make up 27% of the state's voting age population.
A surprise decision
The dispute was closely watched by voting rights experts, who feared that the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority would limit the ability of voters to challenge voting lines under Section 2 and pave the way for more racial gerrymandering of legislative maps.
The high court has weakened the Voting Rights Act in recent years, first in 2013 and then in 2021.
In the 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court effectively dismantled Section 5 of the law, which required jurisdictions with a history of race-based voter discrimination to receive federal approval of changes to their voting rules.
In the 2021 decision, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court upheld two voting rules from Arizona and said they did not violate Section 2. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court's three liberal members, warned in dissent that the ruling "undermines Section 2 and the right it provides," and accused the majority of rewriting the provision.
Separately, in 2019, the Supreme Court said federal courts had no role to play in deciding disputes involving partisan gerrymandering, making the dispute out of Alabama crucial in determining the role the Voting Rights Act would play in racial gerrymandering claims.
veryGood! (83846)
Related
- Benny Blanco Reveals Selena Gomez's Rented Out Botanical Garden for Lavish Date Night
- 'Curb your Enthusiasm' Season 12: Cast, release date, how to watch the final episodes
- Travel-Friendly Water Bottles That Don't Spill, Leak or Get Moldy & Gross
- How often will Taylor Swift be shown during the Super Bowl? Now you can bet on it
- Lane Kiffin puts heat on CFP bracket after Ole Miss pounds Georgia. So, who's left out?
- Biden sets sights on Las Vegas days before Nevada’s primary. He’s also got November on his mind.
- 'It sucks getting old': Jon Lester on Red Sox, Cubs and his future Hall of Fame prospects
- You’ll Adore These Fascinating Facts About Grammy Nominee Miley Cyrus
- USMNT Concacaf Nations League quarterfinal Leg 1 vs. Jamaica: Live stream and TV, rosters
- Spoilers! What that 'Argylle' post-credits scene teases about future spy movies
Ranking
- As CFP rankings punish SEC teams, do we smell bias against this proud and mighty league?
- Winners and losers of NHL All-Star Game weekend: This year's event was much more competitive
- Last year's marine heat waves were unprecedented, forcing researchers to make 3 new coral reef bleaching alert levels
- A Minnesota town used its anti-crime law against a protected class. It’s not the only one
- Skiing legend Lindsey Vonn ends retirement, plans to return to competition
- Police: Inert Cold War-era missile found in garage of Washington state home
- Police: Inert Cold War-era missile found in garage of Washington state home
- The 2024 Grammy Awards are here. Taylor Swift, others poised for major wins: Live updates
Recommendation
-
'We suffered great damage': Fierce California wildfire burns homes, businesses
-
Joe Rogan inks multiyear deal with Spotify, podcast to expand to other platforms
-
Let Your Puppy Be a Part of the Big Football Game With These NFL-Themed Bowls, Toys, Bandanas, & More
-
A story about sports, Black History Month, a racist comment, and the greatest of pilots
-
Residents urged to shelter in place after apparent explosion at Louisville business
-
Bill Belichick thanks 'Patriots fans everywhere' in full-page ad in Boston Globe
-
Second powerful storm in days blows into California, sparking warnings of hurricane-force winds
-
Super Bowl squares: How to play and knowing the best (and worst) squares for the big game
Like
- Veterans face challenges starting small businesses but there are plenty of resources to help
- Mark Zuckerberg to families of exploited kids: 'I'm sorry for everything you've been through'
- Critics see conflict of interest in East Palestine train derailment cleanup: It's like the fox guarding the henhouse