The Supreme Court caved to specious arguments by Democrat lawyers and issued a ruling Thursday that will force two states to create new Black majority (Democrat) seats.
The Court issued a 5-4 ruling in favor of Black plaintiffs challenging a congressional redistricting case from Alabama which said it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Chief Justice Roberts authored the decision and was joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh along with the Court’s leftists.
As the Associated Press reported, the ruling today upheld a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven congressional districts. The state has a 27% Black population.
The Court had previously issued a stay on the Alabama map last year, allowing it to remain in effect for the 2022 Congressional elections.
The AP also notes that Louisiana’s congressional map was also ruled discriminatory against black voters by a lower court. This was the subject of a fierce fight between the Louisiana State Legislature and Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards.
Because of this ruling, both Alabama and Louisiana will now have to draw additional black majority districts according to the AP:
The decision was closely watched for its potential effect on control of the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives. Because of the ruling, Republican-led legislatures in Alabama and Louisiana will have to redraw maps so that they could increase Black representation.
One election analyst predicts Democrats potentially could pick up two additional seats as well. Considering Republicans only have a 222-213 majority, Democrats would come within one seat of flipping control of the House based on race-based districting alone.
Another analyst thinks even more GOP seats could be at risk.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a fiery dissent over Roberts and Kavanaugh caving to liberals which was nearly 50 pages long. He correctly notes the majority engaged in race-based redistricting
Here is his dissent in short:
As applied here, the statute effectively considers it a legal wrong by the State if white Alabamians vote for candidates from one political party at high enough rates, provided that black Alabamians vote for candidates from the other party at a still higher rate. And the statute remedies that wrong by requiring the State to engage in race-based redistricting in the direction of proportional control. I am not certain that Congress’ enforcement power could ever justify a statute so at odds “with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”
