"In Callais v. Louisiana, the court stands poised to either end or severely restrict the scope of Section 2 of the storied Voting Rights Act of 1965, the vehicle by which the courts and the Constitution protect against racialized vote suppression. If the court ultimately opts to do so-and oral argument signaled as much-the consequences for a multiracial democracy would be widespread and catastrophic."
"In a bid to turn the Reconstruction Amendments into weapons to protect white people from discrimination, the Roberts court may not only upend decades of precedent and clear congressional mandates, it could also reshape the future of how we vote for years to come. On this week's Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick spoke to Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. She is a longtime litigator and civil rights scholar."
Callais v. Louisiana asks whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can continue to protect against racialized vote suppression. The Supreme Court heard arguments that could end or severely restrict Section 2, with oral argument signaling a possible decision to curtail the statute. Such a decision would have widespread, catastrophic effects on multiracial democracy, potentially upending decades of precedent and congressional mandates. The Roberts Court may reinterpret the Reconstruction Amendments in a way that shields white voters from discrimination and reshapes voting rules for years. Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, personally argued the case before the Court.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]