What happened in Alabama won't stay in Alabama (and that's a good thing for voters).
Estimated reading time: 3m 34s
|
| |
|
You’d be forgiven for thinking the Supreme Court was actually just a real-life M. Night Shyamalan movie. Just when you think you’re starting to understand the collective minds of the nine justices, they do something you don’t expect. Last year, the conservative-majority court set the tone when it decided to scrap Roe vs Wade, a half-century-old decision that ensured a constitutional right to abortion.
In May, the court curtailed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act, adding to a similar decision last summer that limited the agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions. This is among a series of decisions that one could argue have made the country more dangerous, less environmentally friendly and more discriminative.
Then last week came a long-awaited twist. The court decided that Alabama’s congressional maps likely violate section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The state’s Republican majority in late 2021 had sought to squeeze large portions of Alabama’s growing Black population into one of the state’s seven congressional districts, basically ensuring Alabama would not have a second-Black majority district until the next maps are drawn in 2031.
However, five of the nine justices, including conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, surprisingly sided with the court's three liberals. Alabama will now have to redraw its maps. |
|
|
(Photo credit: Associated Press) |
The decision is all the more shocking when you consider Chief Justice Roberts’, a man who once said it’s “a sordid business, this divvying us up by race,” long history of trying to curtail the Voting Rights Act. He has said publicly that he considered the act as an archaic window into one of the country’s darkest periods, and that it interfered with states’ rights. Roberts was part of a Supreme Court that decided about a decade ago to gut section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain states with a history of racial discrimination to submit any electoral changes and redistricting with the Justice Department or federal court.
In 2018, he sided with a majority that rejected a challenge from BIPOC advocates in Texas who claimed proposed redistricting maps in the state had denied Hispanic and Black voters from the political process. He also voted to uphold an Ohio law that purged voters who hadn’t cast a ballot for at least four years. Roberts was given a slow pitch to continue the destruction of the Voting Rights Act and he didn’t hit it out of the park. |
(Photo credit: Associated Press) |
Although Supreme Court decisions are often nuanced and can sometimes be so specific to one issue that they set no precedent, this is different. Had Alabama’s congressional map been accepted, it would have had wide-ranging consequences.
Other states would have also followed through with plans to place BIPOC voters into single congressional districts, such as Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina and Georgia. All those states have redistricting cases pending. Also known as racial gerrymandering, dividing voters into congressional districts based on race is one way to change or maintain the balance of power in Congress. That has in the past been used as a powerful and unconstitutional tool that has helped shape laws and the national agenda.
But it can also disenfranchise voters.
For example, over a quarter of Alabama’s potential voters are Black but the state only has one Black majority congressional district out of seven. The Supreme Court’s decision won’t magically create a new Black district, but it will allow those voters a greater voice when the map is redrawn. But like everything with this unpredictable Supreme Court, the next twist won’t be too far away. |
How to keep up with what's happening
|
|
|
Got something you want me to dive into next week? Let me know at avelasquez@reckonmedia.com.
That's all I've got for this week!
Thanks for reckoning with me, Aria |
|
|
|
