The Latest: Supreme Court weakens a key tool of the Voting Rights Act

Audio By Carbonatix

The Supreme Court has weakened a key tool of the Voting Rights Act that has helped root out racial discrimination in voting for more than half a century in a case concerning a Black majority congressional district in Louisiana.

The court’s conservative majority found that the district, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields, relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.

It’s unclear how much is left of the provision, known as Section 2, but the ruling could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress. President Donald Trump has already touched off a nationwide redistricting battle to boost Republican chances.

The plaintiffs had argued that Louisiana’s second Black-majority congressional district, drawn to correct a previously discriminatory map, has an unconstitutional racial basis and did not follow the standards for drawing a district, including compactness.

Here's the latest:

“This ruling is about far more than lines on a map — it’s about whether Black Louisianians will have a meaningful opportunity to make their voices heard,” U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, whose predominately Black congressional district encompasses New Orleans, said in a written statement.

Carter said the consequences of the high court’s decision will be “immediate and severe” and that Louisiana’s two majority-Black congressional districts are now at risk of being dismantled.

“Without the protections of the Voting Rights Act, there is no evidence to suggest that Black voters in our state will be able to elect candidates of their choice,” Carter wrote.

“The Civil War Amendments were forged at tremendous human cost to secure a constitutional order grounded in equality before the law—not racial classifications,” Roberts said. “Today’s decision restores that understanding and reaffirms that the Constitution does not permit sorting Americans by race in the exercise of political power.”

“Today’s appalling decision by the Supreme Court is the latest in a long line of attacks by the conservative Court, congressional Republicans, and President Trump against the fundamental right of every American citizen to vote,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads Democrats’ campaign efforts for the U.S. House.

She said “Democrats remain poised to retake the House Majority in November.”

Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights group, said the high court’s decision delivers “a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act.”

The ruling is “a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities,” Johnson said Wednesday. “The Supreme Court betrayed Black voters, they betrayed America, and they betrayed our democracy.”

The ruling comes a month and a half after foot soldiers of the Civil Rights Movement marked 61 years to the day that voting rights marchers were brutally beaten by Alabama state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. The violence that became known as Bloody Sunday shocked the nation and helped spur passage of the landmark legislation that the Supreme Court has now weakened.

“This ruling is a major setback for our nation and threatens to erode the hard-won victories we’ve fought, bled, and died for. But the people still can fight back,” Johnson said. “Our democracy is crying for help.”

The decision “guts” voting rights protection while “pretending to uphold it,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, executive director of Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based voting rights group founded by Democrat Stacey Abrams.

She said the court rewrote the law to require a showing of intentional discrimination.

That’s after Congress in the early 1980s specifically rewrote the Voting Rights Act to overturn an earlier Supreme Court decision in an Alabama case that tried to do the same thing. At the time, Roberts was a Justice Department attorney advocating for a showing of intentional discrimination.

“It allows states, counties and cities to shield their discriminatory maps by claiming they are advancing their own partisan interests, ignoring that race and party are highly correlated in places across the country, particularly the South,” Groh-Wargo wrote in a text message to the AP.

“This is a complete and total victory for American voters,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.

“The color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in. We commend the court for putting an end to the unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act and protecting civil rights,” she said.

More than a half-dozens states have already adopted new U.S. House districts since Trump urged Texas Republicans to redraw their districts last year in a bid to win more seats and maintain a slim House majority in the midterm elections.

The battle has been pretty even thus far. Republicans think they could gain up to nine more seats from new districts in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio — and perhaps four more if Florida lawmakers pass a new map. Democrats, meanwhile, think they could win 10 additional seats from new districts in California, Utah and Virginia.

Mayor Helena Moreno, a Democrat who represents the largest city in Louisiana’s other predominantly Black congressional district, said the Supreme Court’s ruling was “a step backward.”

“For decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a critical safeguard to ensure every voice, especially those historically marginalized, has a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” Moreno said.

“Striking down a district that reflected diversity suppresses voices and weakens our democracy. We should be working to expand representation, not roll it back,” she said.

AP took a closer look at the history of the act, which the NAACP’s Demetria McCain said last year was at “a critical juncture.”

▶ Read more

The Florida Senate reversed itself and took a brief break so senators could review the decision and talk with attorneys. But the Republican-dominated chamber is still expected to vote later Wednesday to approve a GOP gerrymander of the state’s congressional districts.

House Republicans have not broken to consider implications of the Louisiana case in their arguments, despite the Democratic majority’s urging.

The current Florida congressional map gave Republicans a 20-8 advantage in the 2024 election. Gov. Ron DeSantis’ proposal is designed to push that to as much as 24-4 in November.

▶ Read more about redistricting in Florida

The 1965 voting rights law was the centerpiece legislation of the Civil Rights Movement. It succeeded in opening the ballot box to Black Americans and reducing persistent discrimination in voting.

Nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2, election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos has estimated.

▶ Read more on what the Voting Rights Act did

“The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan stated in dissent.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the six conservatives, said the Louisiana district at the heart of the case “is an unconstitutional gerrymander.”

Roberts, the chief justice, described the district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.

The court’s decision was released as Florida legislators debated a proposed redraw of the state’s congressional lines, submitted by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and intended to give the GOP a chance at as much as a 24-4 advantage in the state’s U.S. House delegation.

Senate Democrats urged the Republican supermajority to delay debate to at least offer lawmakers a chance to read the decision and consult attorneys on how it might affect DeSantis’ proposal. Florida Senate Republicans refused.

The AP contacted multiple law professors and redistricting attorneys in the minutes after the decision came out who said they were still reading the decision so did not yet know its full implications.