Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Supreme Court: Voting Rights Act Still Applies

Supreme Court: Voting Rights Act Still Applies

By Addie Stone

2-minute read

On Wednesday, the

Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in the consolidated cases of Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, which challenged Alabama’s redistricting as racial gerrymandering.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, and joined by Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan, found that a challenge to Alabama’s redistricting plan based on a district-by-district analysis of racial gerrymandering was valid. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Alabama claimed that its redistricting plan was valid because it apportioned the number of black voters in line with the historical composition in each district, which it argued was required by the Voting Rights Act.

The court disagreed. It held that § 5 of the Voting Rights Act merely requires states to maintain a minority group’s ability to elect a preferred candidate, not maintain strict percentages of minorities within a district. Considering this interpretation of the Act, the court said that there is “strong, perhaps overwhelming, evidence that race did predominate as a factor when the legislature drew the boundaries…”

The dissent, penned by Justice Scalia, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, focused on the procedural inadequacies of the appellants’ case. Scalia did not agree with the majority’s decision to interpret the appellants’ arguments and claims as legally correct when they were “pleaded with such opacity that, squinting hard enough, one can find them to contain just about anything.”

He also agreed with the lower court that the caucus did not have standing because it failed to present any evidence demonstrating it.

Justice Thomas also wrote a dissent, but focused on what he believes to be substantive faults in the court’s reasoning. Thomas believes that this entire case is a debate about the “best racial quota” because of the immense errors present within the jurisprudence of interpreting the Voting Rights Act.

He believes this jurisprudence, along with the Department of Justice’s interference and the state’s “max-black” plans, which created many majority-black districts -- some even over 70 percent black -- have directly led to the present issue in Alabama.

This victory for minority voters in Alabama is viewed as a small victory, but one that could prevent use of the Voting Rights Act as an excuse to draw district lines in favor of any political party under the pretext of racial equality.

Photo Credit: Gary Blakeley / shutterstock.com

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Supreme Court: Voting Rights Act Still Applies

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us