![]() ![]() ![]() The first step is to show that a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a district that is reasonably configured. Gingles, that established standards for assessing whether a map violates Section 2. “Section 2 surgically targets a set of carefully defined circumstances in which mapmakers, as in Alabama, ignored clear and reasonable alternatives that give minority voters the ability to engage in the pull, haul and trade at the heart of the democratic process and instead, design racially polarized districts where minority voters are submerged and effectively shut out of the democratic process,” O’Neil said.Īs a part of their analysis, the justices will review a 1986 case, Thornburg v. Now supporters of voting rights are fearful that the justices are poised to make it much more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge maps under Section 2. But the opinion was frozen by the 5-4 majority at the Supreme Court. The court ordered a new map to be drawn with an additional majority Black district, which would have likely led to Democrats gaining another seat in the US House in the fall. Voters and voting rights group challenged the maps in court and won when a panel of judges - including two Trump nominees - held that the current map likely violates Section 2 because Black voters have “less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress.” O’Neil, a lawyer representing the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote in court briefs in support of the challengers. “Section 2 remains an irreplaceable tool for ensuring that mapmakers’ discretionary choices do not shut minority voters out of a seat at the table,” David A. They say that Section 2 has been instrumental in paving the way for minority voters to more fully participate in the political process and that it represents a safeguard against maps that appear to be neutral but actually entrench racial polarization. In the years since, challengers have more heavily relied upon Section 2 of the law, which may now also be in jeopardy. ![]() Supporters of voting rights are on edge, cognizant of the fact that in 2013 Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion that effectively invalidated a separate section of the law that required states that had a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing election laws. In an ominous sign for supporters of voting rights, however, a 5-4 Supreme Court majority blocked that decision, allowing the current map to remain on the books, before agreeing to hear the case this term. The federal court ordered another majority Black district to be drawn. The state has seven congressional districts, and despite the fact that Black voters account for 27% of the state’s voting age population, there is only one majority Black district. The court will review a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map as a likely violation of the law. The case marks one of the most important disputes the court will hear this term as the justices - including Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s first Black female justice - consider several cases with implications concerning race. (CNN) - Almost a decade after effectively gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court is setting its sights on a different provision of the law on Tuesday in a case that could make it much more difficult for minority voters to challenge redistricting maps.Īt issue is Section 2 of the historic law, which bars voting rules that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of racial discrimination. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |