Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Racial Discrimination: What Could This Mean for Affirmative Action?

Supreme Court upholds provision prohibiting racial gerrymandering

The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, recently made a landmark decision that requires state legislators to create the maximum number of majority-Black or near-majority-Black congressional districts where voting is racially polarized. The decision upheld the court’s 1986 decision and could have a significant impact on how congressional district lines are drawn in the future —not just for Alabama but for other states with significant Black populations.

The decision

The case centered on Alabama’s congressional redistricting plan, adopted by the Republican-dominated state legislature after the 2020 census, which had drawn seven congressional districts, only one of which offered African American voters a realistic shot at electing their preferred candidate. The state argued that unless there is intentional discrimination, congressional districts shouldn’t be drawn with race in mind.

However, the Black voters countered with the Supreme Court’s four-decade-old precedent that racially polarized states should, under the Voting Rights Act, redraw district lines that offer minority voters the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

The significance of the decision

This decision is unexpected because the conservative court has gutted provisions of the Voting Rights Act before, leaving it as a hollowed-out shell. However, this recent decision appears to have left the last remaining guardrail of redistricting intact, unlike other regulations that have been dropped or weakened in the past.

The ruling could force legislators in other states to reconsider the impact of how they draw congressional lines. For instance, in Georgia, 30% of the population is African American, yet the legislature has struggled to create districts that maximize the Black voting population. As a result, Black voters in Georgia have long complained that their voting rights are being systematically disenfranchised.

Philosophical discussion

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the ruling didn’t “disregard the concern” that the Voting Rights Act “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States.” Instead, Roberts argued that the decision was merely a “faithful application” of precedent and a fair reading of the record didn’t validate the concerns.

However, this decision raises a philosophical question about the nature of gerrymandering itself. At its core, gerrymandering is an act of manipulation to give one political party an advantage over another by providing them with more favorable districts. The practice dilutes the political power of a particular group by over or underrepresenting them in districts and rendering their votes count for less. The act is designed to maximize political power at the expense of fairness and the basic principle of one person, one vote.

By considering Race in redistricting, the court is trying to, in a sense, balance the power in a state rather than manipulating it in one party’s favor. While this may seem like a fair solution, it begs the question of how much the court should be involved in the legislative process and whether interpreting these laws relies too much on subjective interpretations. The decision raises the gray area around gerrymandering by bringing to the limelight how much political considerations and racial demographics ought to play a role in carving out districts.

Editorial and advice

The court’s decision sends a strong message to state legislators looking to rig electoral results in their favor. Lawmakers should not put political ideology before the basic principle of one person, one vote. Partisan interests must not be elevated above the civil rights of racial minorities and disabled residents.

The decision ultimately underlines the need for comprehensive electoral reform to unseat partisan influence in redistricting. It calls for a system that empowers state voters to hold lawmakers accountable, rather than allowing lawmakers to choose their voters. Such reforms include independent redistricting commissions, automatic voter registration, and voting-rights-restoration legislation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision represents a ray of hope for voters who want to see fair electoral representation in their respective states. It’s a shift towards fair electoral representation and independent policymaking rather than the polarizing approach that has been the norm in past redistricting decisions.