The conservative majority in the Supreme Court has been gradually undermining the Voting Rights Act. Their recent 6-3 decision, which significantly weakened Section 2 of the Act, was anticipated.
Please enjoy this free post. You can support our work by becoming a subscriber.
Democrats may feel compelled to pass new voting rights legislation in response, but any new law could eventually face scrutiny by the conservative Supreme Court, potentially leading to a similar situation in the future.
Despite the ruling, the court did not declare Section 2 unconstitutional, instead allowing for gerrymandering based on political affiliation rather than race.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision and suggested a way forward.
In a statement, Raskin remarked:
The Supreme Court has effectively dismantled the Voting Rights Act, a pivotal achievement of the 20th-century civil rights movement, realized through the sacrifices of marchers and freedom riders and repeatedly supported by bipartisan majorities in Congress. Through what can only be described as extraordinary and cynical judicial activism, six Justices have undermined Congressâs clear intentions by neutralizing Section 2 of the VRA. They have imposed a requirement for proving intentional racial discriminationâa standard explicitly rejected by Congress in 1982.
The Court has now concluded its effort to weaken the preclearance protections of Section 5 in Shelby County v. Holder. This represents a disgraceful chapter for the federal judiciary and a lasting blemish on this Courtâs legacy. Coupled with the Courtâs 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which prohibits federal courts from addressing partisan gerrymandering, todayâs ruling is disastrous for American democracy. Partisan gerrymanders are now untouchable, as are racial vote dilution strategies that exclude minority voters, provided they are recast as partisan gerrymanders. Republican legislatures across the South are already planning to dismantle and eliminate majority-minority districts at every level. The Court has effectively sanctioned these egregious and discriminatory gerrymanders. This moment recalls the end of political Reconstruction in the 19th century.
Under the Roberts Court, creating a majority African-American or Hispanic district to ensure fair representation is deemed an unconstitutional âracial gerrymander,â whereas dismantling such a district is acceptable if it serves to establish a âpartisan gerrymander.â This is a significant setback for American democracy.
I urge Congress to establish nonpartisan independent redistricting commissions nationwide to remove map-drawing from political influence and to authorize multi-member congressional districts with proportional representation to prevent partisan dominance. Congress must act immediately to rescue the country from constitutional inconsistencies and partisan authoritarianism.
A nationwide prohibition on gerrymandering should be enacted. All congressional district boundaries ought to be determined by independent commissions.
Partisan gerrymandering is currently permissible under this ruling, but by outlawing it, Congress can create a law that would withstand Supreme Court scrutiny because the conservative majority would be unable to challenge it.
Democrats face a choice: continue pursuing voting rights legislation that ends up in court or take decisive action to strengthen democracy by eliminating gerrymandering when they gain control of Congress and the White House.
It is crucial for Democrats to translate their rhetoric into action and make significant efforts to secure voting rights.
