Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Compares Race to Disability in Voting Rights Case
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s remarks during Supreme Court oral arguments on October 11, 2023, have ignited controversy. In a case centered on racial gerrymandering, she compared the political representation challenges faced by Black Americans to the physical limitations encountered by people with disabilities. This analogy struck many as shocking and misguided.
Jackson focused on South Carolina’s congressional redistricting, asserting that race-conscious districting might be necessary. She stated, “My kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA,” referencing the Americans with Disabilities Act. “Congress passed the ADA against the backdrop of a world generally not accessible to people with disabilities… why is that not what’s happening here?”
This comparison drew widespread derision. Critics swiftly noted the problematic nature of linking racial identity with disability status, suggesting that Jackson implied Black Americans are akin to a disenfranchised group needing special accommodations due to their inherent disadvantages. A notable tweet capturing this sentiment bluntly stated, “Justice Ketanji Jackson declares we need to draw congressional districts based on race because Black people are like disabled people… ‘They don’t have equal access to the voting system. They’re DISABLED!'”
The legal backdrop of the case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, examines whether the state legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering when redistricting after the 2020 Census. A lower court had ruled that Black voters were strategically moved from one district, raising questions about the integrity of political representation under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Jackson’s comments bring to light significant legal implications regarding how racial policies are interpreted and implemented. By equating race with disability, she opens doors to a framework where entire racial groups may receive legal preferences not based on active discrimination but on presupposed disadvantages. This conflation challenges the premise of equal protection embraced by the 14th Amendment, which safeguards individual rights rather than establishing group-based special treatment.
Legal experts argue that Jackson’s reasoning shifts the focus from individual civil rights to group identity politics, undermining the democratic bedrock of equal representation. Critics assert that using race as a primary factor in drawing district lines risks exacerbating racial tensions rather than bridging divides. “They don’t have equal access to the voting system,” Jackson reiterated, equating their situation to individuals with disabilities, which has prompted sharp backlash.
Opponents of the redistricting contend that race significantly influenced the South Carolina map, alleging that Black areas were manipulated to weaken their voting power. Conversely, the state legislature maintains that political, rather than racial, considerations guided their decisions. This dispute points toward a fundamental disagreement over the role that racial factors should play in political representation.
Jackson’s assertion has not just ruffled feathers among conservatives; it has raised eyebrows among those who typically advocate for voting rights. Critics have highlighted that comparing racial identity to protected classes under the ADA suggests permanent victimhood among racial groups, which contradicts the principles of the Equal Protection Clause. Data shows that voting turnout among Black Americans does fluctuate, but significant disparities do not consistently indicate systemic disenfranchisement that would necessitate a racially based redistricting approach.
The implications of Jackson’s analogy resonate far beyond the specific case at hand. If her reasoning gains traction, it may pivot the judicial landscape from race-neutral practices toward entitlements based on race across various legal contexts. This shift could threaten voter-approved reforms aimed at curbing racial or party-line gerrymandering, potentially igniting further litigation surrounding legislative districting.
Even those with liberal leanings have voiced concern over the dangers of identity-based legal frameworks. The Court has previously underscored that any use of racial classifications in voting requires a compelling interest and must be narrowly tailored. Justice Clarence Thomas has long advocated for viewing individuals as such rather than as part of racial groups, stating that such approaches can corrupt the concept of equal citizenship within a political community.
If Jackson’s viewpoint, equating racial considerations to physical impairment, becomes the prevailing logic, the ramifications could reshape rights discourse—it could compel the government to ensure racial group outcomes, including guaranteed representation in the political realm where disparities exist. Such a transformation would profoundly impact the understanding of equal rights, a stance historically resisted by the courts.
The Supreme Court is anticipated to deliver its verdict on the South Carolina case by mid-2024, a decision likely to have extensive implications for district mapping nationwide. The outcome will establish precedents concerning how allegations of racial gerrymandering are evaluated and whether legislatures are compelled to consider racial demographics when drawing district lines.
Jackson’s remarks serve as a flashpoint in the ongoing dialogue about race within American jurisprudence. By drawing an unorthodox parallel between race and legal disability, she raises fundamental questions regarding the interpretation of American constitutional principles. Her comments echo wider concerns about the potential directions the Court may explore regarding race-based policymaking moving forward.
"*" indicates required fields
