The Albany Gazette - US Supreme Court curbs race-based voting maps in landmark ruling

In a 6–3 ruling split along ideological lines, the court struck down a map creating a second majority-Black district in Louisiana, finding it amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander despite being drawn to comply with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The decision leaves the core of the Voting Rights Act intact but narrows how it can be used, a decision that will be seen by civil rights activists as a blow to a landmark civil rights law that has already been weakened by previous rulings over the past decade.

It was not immediately clear how much the ruling will impact the November elections for control of Congress.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that compliance with the law "could not justify" the use of race in this case, arguing that Section 2 of the act does not require states to draw districts primarily on racial lines.

"In sum, because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the state's use of race in creating SB8," Alito wrote.

"That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights."

The ruling marks a significant shift in how courts interpret the balance between preventing racial discrimination and adhering to constitutional guarantees of equal protection, raising the bar for when race can be considered in redistricting.

Both the majority ruling and the dissent were read from the bench, a rare move in the high court.

Justice Elena Kagan warned that the decision would have sweeping consequences, saying it risked letting states "without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power."

The case centered on an electoral map redrawn after the 2020 census to add a second district in which Black voters formed a majority, following court challenges that the previous map diluted minority voting strength.

- 'Color-blind' -

That revised map was then challenged by a group of non-Black voters who argued it relied too heavily on race, setting up a clash between efforts to enforce voting rights protections and constitutional limits on race-based decision-making.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with those challengers, concluding that the map crossed the line into unconstitutional racial sorting.

The implications could extend far beyond a single state. Legal analysts say the ruling may make it harder to create or maintain majority-minority districts -- a key tool used for decades to ensure representation for Black and other minority voters.

Such districts have often favored Democratic candidates, meaning the decision could give Republicans an advantage in closely contested House races in November.

The case comes amid an intensifying national battle over redistricting, with both Republican- and Democratic-led states seeking to redraw boundaries in ways that could shift the balance of power in Congress.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act -- the provision at the center of the case -- was designed to prevent voting practices that dilute minority influence, even without explicit evidence of discrimination.

But the court's conservative majority has increasingly signaled discomfort with race-conscious remedies, suggesting they must have limits under what conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who is Black, described as a "color-blind" Constitution.

The ruling follows a series of decisions that have chipped away at the Voting Rights Act, including a 2013 judgment that struck down a key provision requiring federal oversight of election law changes in states with histories of discrimination.

(L.Thomas--TAG)