Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Supreme Court, known for her liberal views, drew parallels on Wednesday between the racial drawing of congressional district lines and the accessibility improvements for disabled individuals implemented after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act exists to address the lingering effects of historical and ongoing decisions that create barriers for minorities, limiting their equal access to the voting process,” Jackson stated, as she engaged with an attorney advocating for Louisiana voters. The attorney contended that the establishment of a second majority-black district mandated by the court contravened the 14th Amendment, as it focused on racial demographics in district designations.
<p“In this context, it’s fair to say these voters are disabled,” she remarked, referencing the situation of minority voters in Louisiana.
Sourcing from a 2023 Supreme Court decision, which found Alabama’s dilution of black citizens’ voting influence to be unlawful, Jackson pointed out that the majority opinion referred to voters as “disabled” who were subject to “processes that are not equally accessible.”
<p“Congress is asserting that when there are barriers, Section 2 provides the necessary tools to address them,” Jackson contended.
After the 2020 Census, Louisiana’s initial congressional map featured a solitary majority-black district. However, lower courts mandated a redrawing of the district lines, citing a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965.
The demographics reveal that approximately one-third of Louisiana’s population is black, and the state’s only two Democratic representatives in Congress were elected from majority-black districts.
Jackson articulated, “My quintessential example here is akin to the ADA,” likening the judicial remedy enforced by the courts to the significant civil rights legislation enacted by Congress in 1990.
<p“The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in a context where access for individuals with disabilities was not the norm, thus resulting in a form of discrimination, as they were unable to enter these spaces,” explained the justice.
Jackson articulated, “Regardless of the intentions of those involved in creating or owning the buildings, what’s crucial is the outcome. Congress mandated that public spaces must be made accessible to individuals with disabilities whenever feasible.”
<p“I struggle to comprehend why this principle doesn't apply here,” she continued.
In response, Garrett Greim, representing the plaintiffs, contended that the court’s directive for Louisiana to adhere to the Voting Rights Act incorrectly imposes stereotypical viewpoints on minority voters.
“The distinction lies in that remedies under both the ADA and other anti-discrimination laws do not engage in stereotyping,” Greim argued.
Jackson acknowledged, “I recognize your point, but you seem to suggest that if the issue of access is indeed racial, it must be disregarded because the remedy cannot connect to race.”
Greim retorted, “Not at all… The concern is whether a race-related remedy resorts to stereotyping voters and assumes they share common political views or ideologies based solely on race.”
“That becomes the crux of the issue, a matter that remains absent in other civil rights statutes,” he concluded.
Throughout the proceedings, the six conservative justices of the Supreme Court suggested a desire to impose limitations on the use of race as a determining factor in congressional district delineations.
A ruling in this significant case is anticipated by June of the coming year.
