In a decision that surprised legal experts across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday against congressional maps drawn in Alabama, asserting that they were the product of racist gerrymandering.
Two conservative bloc justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — joined with all three liberal bloc members (Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson) to form the majority opinion in the case. Roberts penned the opinion of the Court.
Because of the many restrictions to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that were implemented over the past few Supreme Court terms, the case was expected to result in the law being further curtailed. Instead, however, the ruling produced a “step back from the brink of totally gutting” the 1965 statute, NPR reported.
The Court agreed with a lower appellate court’s ruling that found that Alabama officials had unfairly packed Black voters into one majority-Black district near the capital city of Montgomery, diluting Black residents’ voting power near that area by placing them in three other majority-white districts. Although Black Alabamans make up around 27 percent of the state’s population, with just one Black-majority district, the maps greatly diminished the ability of Black voters to select lawmakers.
Alabama officials contended that their maps were developed in a race-neutral way, and thus constitutional. Roberts and the majority, however, noted that Alabama was trying to create new benchmarks for drawing districts, thwarting precedent established by the Supreme Court in the 1980s.
“The heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. It is about Alabama’s attempt to remake our…jurisprudence anew,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.
If the Court had adopted the “race-neutral benchmark,” Roberts wrote, it would fare “poorly” in practice, “which further counsels against our adopting it.”
The appellate court had initially ruled that a new map had to be drawn up, with a second majority-Black (or near-majority) district to be drawn within it. The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, and as a result of the decision published on Thursday, a second district encompassing a majority of Black voters will be part of Alabama’s congressional delegation moving forward.
Even though he joined four other justices in opposing the gerrymandered districts, Roberts left open the possibility, in his opinion, of justices further diluting the VRA in the future, writing that the majority’s ruling doesn’t “diminish or disregard” his and other conservatives’ concerns that the law “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States.”
But the map drawn by Alabama lawmakers was not a “faithful application of precedent,” Roberts added.
Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation, took note of Roberts’s words.
“Roberts flipped here because Alabama went too far,” Mystal wrote. “That Roberts has a ‘too far’ line on this issue IS surprising. But he’s not coming to Jesus or anything.”
The ruling has the potential to extend to two other cases — one in Louisiana and another in Georgia — in which Black voters have argued that they are deserving of additional majority or near-majority districts due to gerrymandered maps diluting their votes.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund director of litigation Deuel Ross, who argued the case before the Court last fall, celebrated the ruling, but recognized that more work is needed to secure true representation for voters in Alabama and elsewhere.
This decision is a crucial win against the continued onslaught of attacks on voting rights. Alabama attempted to rewrite federal law by saying race could not be considered in the redistricting process even when necessary to remedy racial discrimination. But because of the state’s sordid and well-documented pattern of persisting racial discrimination, race must be considered to ensure communities of color are not boxed out of the electoral process.
Tish Gotell Faulks, legal director for the ACLU of Alabama, also celebrated the ruling.
“The key takeaway from today’s decision is the court’s acknowledgment that the Alabama Legislature knowingly continued its legacy of drawing illegal voting districts that disenfranchise Black voters. The Alabama Legislature must now draw new, fairer voting districts,” Gotell Faulks said.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.