More new U.S. Supreme Court decisions are protecting voter rights in Alabama, Louisiana and North Carolina. These cases may have lasting effects on gerrymandering and voter rights across the nation.
To understand these decisions, one must understand redistricting. Congressional maps are redrawn every ten years following the United States Census. As reported by the New York Times, maps change to reflect population changes and keep districts at roughly the same number. This process has brought about unfair advantages through gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the process of intentionally distorting political districts to give one party an advantage. Black voters have often been hurt by this process, and so these court cases came about.
On June 8, the U.S. Supreme Court, or SCOTUS, ruled on the Alabama congressional map, finding a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 acts as a way to stop discriminatory voting practices and enforce the fifteenth amendment. The gerrymandering in Alabama’s congressional map was hurting Black voters and the Court’s ruling defended their rights.
Later that month on June 26, the SCOTUS lifted a hold on Louisiana's political map to align with the decision made in Alabama. The Associated Press reports the hold was placed as the Court made a decision on Alabama’s map first.
These two decisions focus on Black and white majorities in congressional maps. The Associated Press identified one-fourth of Alabama’s population to be Black, yet, only one of its seven congressional districts has a Black majority. This is similar to Louisiana. Their current congressional map has white majorities in five of its six districts, despite Black people accounting for one-third of the state population.
This is all a political game as Republican-leaning legislators in Alabama and Louisiana gerrymander maps to favor Republican-learning outcomes. Republicans prefer these white majorities as Black majorities have been found to lean Democratic. If districts are changed to stop favoring white majorities, Democrats may win more.
Following the Louisiana redistricting decision was the North Carolina redistricting decision on June 27. While all these decisions focus on redistricting, this case looks more at the power of a state’s governmental bodies.
A top court in North Carolina ruled against a congressional redistricting plan which was excessively partisan under state law. The Associated Press reported SCOTUS stood by the North Carolina court, enforcing that state courts can restrict legislatures when it comes to federal redistricting and elections.
This decision brought forward comments from Vice President Kamala Harris on safeguarding elections and protecting the voice of the American people. Former President Barack Obama also added to the conversation saying this ruling rejects theories of election deniers and extremists.
That being said, part of the ruling reiterated that state courts cannot police elections. In the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explains state courts may not exceed the bounds of judicial review to intrude upon state legislatures.
This brings us back to Ohio. Ohio’s legislatures have been arguing over redistricting since the process began in August 2021. According to WOSU, the maps have been rejected five times by the Ohio Supreme Court due to Republican gerrymandering. A federal court intervened in May 2022 to allow the use of the unconstitutional maps for this year’s elections.
The latest update came on June 30, when the U.S. Supreme Court sent back an Ohio congressional redistricting appeal, encouraging the Ohio Supreme Court to review the North Carolina decision. Ohio Capital Journal reports this decision essentially rejects all arguments made by Republicans for legislative authority over district maps. More discussion on Ohio congressional maps is not expected until September, so Ohioans will need to wait and see what happens.
This collection of decisions shows a willingness of the Court to defend Black voters and stop unlawful gerrymandering. With more decisions to come, this may give clues into how SCOTUS will rule in the future. Additionally, it’s important to note these rulings so we can watch how the effects change future election cycles. There is still a long way to go when it comes to voter rights, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.
Claire Schiopota is a senior studying journalism. Please note that the opinions expressed in this column do not reflect those of The Post. Want Claire to cover a certain topic or talk about her column? Email her at cs123719@ohio.edu or tweet her @CSchiopota.
