The conservative majority of the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared poised to back Alabama’s Republican-friendly congressional map in a crucial voting rights case that could have far-reaching implications beyond the 2024 election. rice field.
In nearly two hours of tense oral arguments, the state takes a “race-neutral” approach in setting voting boundaries and should not be forced to classify voters by race. I claimed.
But the Biden administration and civil rights groups have told judges not to undermine enforcement of key provisions of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
Despite having a 27% black population statewide, only one of the seven congressional districts where racial minorities make up the majority of voters remains included in the redrawn map So the state’s re-districting plan is being challenged.
Supreme Court Tuesday to hear debate over alleged racism in Alabama rezoning plan
The federal district court said the state could have used traditional reorganization criteria to set up majority and minority second constituencies.
But the Supreme Court issued a preliminary order in February allowing the state to use the map for now in the 2022 midterm elections enacted by the Republican-led Congress. The judge also put on hold a similar effort to add his second black-majority district to Louisiana in time for the November election.
Alabama’s current congressional delegation has only one black representative, Terry Sewell (Democrat), from the only black-majority constituency.
Three federal judiciary commissions said existing maps based on the 2020 Census likely violated the Voting Rights Act and may undermine the voting power of minority voters. concluded that it was highly likely. We ask states to make it harder for minorities to elect candidates of their own choosing.
Section 2 of the VRA at issue here prohibits states from voting practices that “result in denying or reducing the right to vote on the grounds of race or color,” and that election rules are “equally open.” It must be a “ta” thing.
In oral argument, the latest Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson dominated the debate, relentlessly questioning the position of Alabama Attorney General Edmund Lacourt. She suggested that black voters were compressed into a single black minority district.
Federal intervention “occurs when people continue to vote in a racially blocked way, but if that stops happening, what we all want is for people to spread out.” , live with each other, and vote based on your opinion, not voting. Along racial lines, there is no violation of Section 2. Is that correct?” I said no.
Justice Elena Cagan said, “In recent years, [Voting Rights Act] Statutes are not working well in this court. ”
She told LaCour:
Conservative judges, by comparison, asked the lawyers few questions. Judge Clarence Thomas, one of his two black lawmakers in court, said he only asked one question, while Judge Neil Gorsuch remained silent throughout.
But Judge Samuel Alito strongly questioned the Biden Department of Justice’s stance, saying some states would never be able to meet the demands of those seeking to maximize voting rights for minorities.
“Don’t plaintiffs always move the table? Where can they? [the challenged states] Alito asked, “They’re not going to win over whether minority groups are politically united. They’re not going to win over whether the majority votes as a bloc. This is due to ideology. There is, and it may have nothing to do with race. “
Popular parody website files AMICUS brief with satire on the Supreme Court
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett could be key to the outcome. They asked both sides tough questions, and their comments suggested that they might ultimately side with Alabama, but they might tend to keep a significant portion of Section 2 of the VRA.
High courts in recent years have undermined portions of the Voting Rights Act that deal with the enforcement of alleged violations of minority voting rights.
A court next month will hear another significant voting rights case to test whether state courts have improperly exercised the powers granted by the U.S. Constitution to state representatives to control federal elections and legislative re-elections. increase.
This involved North Carolina Republicans challenging a state court ruling that rejected congressional districts elected by the state legislature, with 10 of the state’s 14 congressional districts. The Republican nominee is likely to win.
The High Court is now being called upon for the first time to invoke the “Independent Legislature Doctrine.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Proponents of the ISL say Article 1 of the Constitution specifically states that “the time, place and manner in which elections for senators and representatives shall be held shall be prescribed by the legislatures of each state.” By state courts or state constitutions.
The consolidated Alabama cases are Merrill v. Milligan (21-1086) and Merrill v. Castor (21-1087). A verdict is expected later this quarter, following the November parliamentary elections.