Democrats are panicking about the possibility of the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act after conservative justices on Wednesday expressed openness to it in a marquee redistricting case out of Louisiana.
The Supreme Court resumed arguments for the case, Louisiana vs. Callais, after unexpectedly punting the decision to their next term in June. The case centers around 12 voters who identify as “non-African American” and argued that the state’s 2024 congressional map relied too heavily on race.
The case has only gained significance since it started. It’s grown from an under-the-radar years-long dispute about Louisiana’s congressional map to one that could have national consequences. And after conservative justices on the court sounded open to the plaintiffs’ argument on Wednesday, Democrats quickly made clear the possible stakes of the upcoming decision.
“Combined with Republicans mid-decade gerrymandering, a ruling gutting Section Two [of the Voting Rights Act] could help them secure an additional 27 safe Republican United States House seats, at least 19 directly tied to the loss of Section Two,” New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, said in a press conference outside the Capitol following the oral arguments on Wednesday.
“A ruling of this magnitude would have wide ranging implications on Black and minority representation in the Congress,” Clarke added, standing alongside several Congressional Black Caucus members.
One analysis by The New York Times estimates that the effect of a ruling against the Voting Rights Act could threaten Democrats’ hold on approximately a dozen House seats in the South, in states including Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and North Carolina.
Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter told reporters that a ruling that weakens the Voting Rights Act could lead to the state losing its two Democratic Congress members. Carter and his delegation colleague, Rep. Cleo Fields, are the Democrats who represent the two majority-Black districts in Louisiana. The existing congressional map created the second majority-Black seat now held by Fields.
“Though Black people make up one-third of the population, only five Louisianans have served in the US House, out of 171,” Carter said. “That’s not equal representation, that’s a travesty. Without protections like Section Two, Black communities will lose power. Their concerns are sidelined, and our democracy is weakened.”
In August, justices asked both sides of the case to submit new briefs addressing whether “the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” This signaled to court observers that the case could have more sweeping repercussions than originally imagined.
And it set up more predictable fault lines for the case. Once the maps’ defenders made up a unique coalition of members of both parties. Now, Louisiana Republicans have stopped defending the map and argued that all race-conscious redistricting is unconstitutional. The state has joined the plaintiff voters to argue against the map.
Last month, Nancy Landry, the Louisiana Secretary of State who initially argued in favor of the map, stated her interest in splitting argument time with the voters. The Supreme Court denied her request.
Fields told NOTUS in an interview after the oral arguments that the state’s changing position struck him as “unusual” and “makes no sense.” He added that this case will have lasting ramifications outside of his state.
“It’s not about the 6th District, it’s about the whole country, and not only Congress,” Fields said. “It’s about legislatures, city council, school board. The Voting Rights Act affects every state and in the country. And if they do away with subsection two, it’s going to have a negative impact on Black voters, minority voters all over the country.”
At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Democrats weren’t the only ones following along. Louisiana Republicans Sen. John Kennedy and Gov. Jeff Landry were in attendance for the packed hearing.
Hashim M. Mooppan, the deputy solicitor general for the Department of Justice, argued to the Supreme Court justices that Section 2 of the Voting Right Act is being used to “undo political outcomes.”
“They took Blacks from Baton Rouge and Blacks at the north of the state and jammed them together,” Mooppan said during. “Yeah, it’s a nice rectangular district. It’s very pretty, but it’s not compact.”
Conservative justices on the court asked about possible issues with the Voting Rights Act. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that “race-based remedies” to correct violations of the Voting Rights Act have been made “permissible” by the court in the past but “should not be indefinite.”
And Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Janai Nelson, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which is defending the map, if it is “acceptable” under the Voting Rights Act for “a court to intentionally discriminate in a remedial map on the basis of race?”
Meanwhile, the liberal justices on the court took issue with the argument. Justice Sonia Sotomayor worried that the reforms to the Voting Rights Act suggested by Mooppan would reduce the opportunity for Black voters in the state to elect a Black candidate.
“What you’re saying is that partisanship is non-negotiable,” Sotomayor said. “You have to create maps where you’re going to have six districts out of seven, always white, because that’s our partisanship. That means Blacks never have a chance no matter what their number is, until they reach more than 51%.”
Justice Elena Kagan asked Nelson what would happen if the Voting Rights Act wasn’t able to “prevent dilution in redistricting.” Nelson responded by saying that the changes could be “catastrophic.”
“It is an intervention that has been crucial to diversifying leadership and providing an ability of minority voters to have an equal opportunity to participate in the process,” Nelson said. “But it also isn’t a permanent remedy. It corrects itself over time, and it’s only triggered when those extreme conditions exist.”
—
This story was produced as part of a partnership between NOTUS and Verite News.