The Supreme Court has just done Democrats a big favor. A ruling that will likely increase their chances of regaining the majority in the House by 2024.
The Chief Justice John Roberts’ surprise opinion confirming a lower court’s findings , that Republican mapmakers likely illegally dilute the power of Black votes in Alabama is poised to give Democrats
The ruling may have far-reaching implications. The high court, by refusing to weaken further the Voting Right Act, opened the door to Democrats who could now make claims of racial discrimination in other states throughout the South. This decision could have a domino-effect in Louisiana, South Carolina Georgia and Texas. These states may be forced into adding new districts with more Black and Latino voters.
The litigation may also put other Republicans in defense in states that they control in the South. However, it is not known if the lawsuit will be completed in time for 2024 elections outside of Alabama. The new maps may help Democrats regain control of the House, especially if they perform well in the 2024 presidential election and other elections.
Republicans are planning to redraw a class=”js-tealium-tracking” data-tracking=”mpos=&mid=&lindex=&lcol=” href=”https://www Republicans plan to redraft districts in North Carolina, Ohio and a process which could double the GOP majority of five seats in the House. New York, and HTML
“It will not only affect Alabamians. It’ll also affect what’s happening in Ohio and North Carolina,” stated Rep. Teri Sewell, D-Ala. “I do believe that it will encourage litigation in other Southern states with a large African American population.” This is a great day.”
Some Democrats did not believe that the ruling will extend beyond Alabama, or that efforts to repeal the Voting Right Act are over. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said in an interview that he thought it was “ominous,” that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had written in a concurring opinon that
Republicans were outraged by the decision, and promised to continue to pursue other legal avenues in order to undermine the Voting Right Act.
Adam Kincaid is the president of National Republican Redistricting Trust. He said that continuing with the current framework would only lead to exploratory litigation, in search of a standard. The Supreme Court has ample opportunity to reconcile its precedents or abandon them in the coming term. It should not miss this chance.
A victory in Alabama
Alabama has a population of approximately 27 percent Blacks, but only one of the seven congressional districts allows Black voters to choose their own candidate. Sewell represents the seat that stretches from Montgomery, Tuscaloosa, and Birmingham.
Democrats challenged this map in court following the redistricting of 2021. Alabama argued in response that the Voting Right Act must be interpreted “race neutrally” in order to comply with the law. The majority of the Supreme Court rejected this argument. The court also preserved an old test for what constitutes voter dilution. This left a path open for other redistricting cases.
Republicans acknowledge that the ruling in Alabama will likely result in more lawsuits challenging congressional boundaries.
The National Redistricting Foundation’s strategists, a Democratic organization that supported the challenge against Alabama’s map and backed the challenge, expressed their hope that the ruling would result in the creation of additional Black Opportunity Districts in Alabama, The group has been supporting ongoing litigation in every state under Section 2 Voting Rights Act.
Best-case scenario, this could result in three additional seats for Democrats across the Deep South. Most notably in Alabama.
It would be easy to create a second district in which Black voters can elect the candidate they prefer. This could also put Republican incumbents at risk, including Reps. Jerry Carl or Barry Moore depending on the way in which the GOP-controlled legislature proceeds.
Democrats who were involved in the case found out Thursday morning that the court had ruled for them. Sewell reported that her office phone rang nonstop from people calling to rejoice. National Redistricting Foundation employees were in a video conference when the decision was announced. The meeting was interrupted by cheers, screams, and tears.
This was the first case we brought as a group. “This fight is deeply rooted in our hearts and everyone is passionate about it,” said Marina Jenkins.
The ripple Effect
Democrats in other states are expecting the Supreme Court ruling to be favorable for them.
The Louisiana Democrats and civil right groups made a similar demand for a second district that would be primarily Black. This could cover the areas from Baton Rouge up to rural northern Louisiana. After a lower court ruled that congressional maps drawn by GOP legislators likely discriminated against Blacks, the Supreme Court placed that case on hold in the summer of last year pending the Alabama case. The state only has one district with a majority of Black voters out of six despite having a population that is approximately 3% Black.
Rep. Troy Carter, D-La., said: “I believe Alabama and other Southern states who may also be affected by this ruling should rejoice.” The battle is not over but we are definitely better off today than yesterday.
A group of Democratic groups in Georgia is suing for more districts with a higher percentage of Black voters. The lower court judge said that the challenge was likely to be successful, while still allowing the current maps to go into effect in the midterm elections for 2022.
In Texas, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in 2021 alleging that the GOP’s map, and in particular a West Texas district now held by GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales, was drawn in order to weaken Latino voting power.
The Supreme Court will also hear a case in the fall regarding the legality South Carolina’s congressional maps after a lower judge ruled Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.’s) seat as an unpermissible racial map. The challengers in the area argue that the district violates the Equal Protection Clause and not the Voting Right Act.
Mace, when asked to comment on the legal uncertainty in her state, said: “I want to know how my district will look and who I am going to serve.” I don’t know whether it will be ready for ’24 or ’26.”
Nicholas Wu contributed.
