On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court engaged in oral arguments regarding race-based voting districts in Louisiana. This case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais, challenges the legality of creating congressional districts that prioritize race over political considerations. The arguments presented by the Department of Justice, under President Trump, advocate for the abolition of race-based districting methods that have long been instated by the courts and lawmakers.
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, along with Solicitor General John Sauer, argued firmly during the hearing. The crux of their position is clear: race-based congressional districts are no longer justifiable under the U.S. Constitution. According to Dhillon, “Today at SCOTUS, the [DOJ Civil Rights Division] told the Justices that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act cannot constitutionally require race-predominant districting!” This statement highlights a shift in how race relations and voting rights are interpreted in legal contexts.
The case stems from Louisiana lawmakers succumbing to pressures from left-leaning judges to create a second “majority-minority” congressional district. The Justice Department’s brief against this move outlines three critical points that seek to dismantle the assumptions and arguments supporting race-first districting.
First and foremost, the emphasis is on the necessity of proving that proposed majority-minority districts are “superior” to race-neutral maps. According to the DOJ, without substantial evidence showing that race-based accommodations lead to better electoral outcomes, these practices are untenable. They argue that simply assuming that race must dictate districting amounts to a baseless assertion of racism.
Secondly, the DOJ posits that race and party affiliation must be decoupled. The brief asserts that courts have allowed political affiliations, particularly among Democrats, to mask racial divides under the guise of polarized voting trends. “Plaintiffs must decouple party from race when determining whether majority and minority voters vote differently,” the brief states. This critique signals a growing frustration with how partisan politics often intertwine with racial considerations in the electoral system.
Finally, the DOJ calls for tangible evidence of discrimination to justify race-based practices. This aligns with a precedent set in Shelby County v. Holder, a 2013 ruling that effectively undermined outdated provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The DOJ emphasizes that current voter turnout is high and minority candidates are achieving successful electoral feats across the country. They point to record levels of black representation in Congress as evidence that race-based electoral considerations are outdated and unnecessary.
Interestingly, during the hearings, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the Department’s perspective by drawing a controversial analogy. She likened black voters not supporting their favored candidates to individuals with disabilities lacking proper access to voting. “They don’t have equal access to the voting system. They’re disabled,” Jackson remarked. This comparison has stirred debate, with critics questioning the appropriateness and accuracy of equating these two groups.
This case is poised to be a significant moment for the Supreme Court, possibly reshaping the landscape of race and voting rights in the United States. As the legal arguments unfold, observers are closely watching how the justices will weigh the importance of race in shaping electoral districts against the calls for a more color-blind approach to representation.
"*" indicates required fields
