"The case asks whether the Voting Rights Act gives Black Louisianans too much political power-and if so, whether the landmark law violates the Constitution. Unsurprisingly, the Republican-appointed justices seem eager to rule that it does. Throughout oral arguments, they suggested the VRA protects minority voters too effectively, dragging the government into race-conscious considerations that offend the equal protection rights of the white voters who sued in this case."
"And they floated various ways to gut what remains of the statute by twisting it beyond recognition or striking it down altogether. The result would be a windfall for Republicans, who stand to gain at least 19 seats in the House of Representatives if the Supreme Court frees them to gerrymander Black communities into oblivion. Such a decision would also devastate minority representation in Congress, eliminating up to 30 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus."
Callais v. Louisiana asks whether the Voting Rights Act gives Black Louisianans excessive political power and whether the law violates the Constitution. Republican-appointed justices signaled eagerness to curtail race-conscious protections, arguing the VRA may offend equal protection rights of white voters who sued. They proposed narrowing or striking down major VRA provisions, which would enable Republican gerrymanders and could cost Democrats at least 19 House seats. The decision could eliminate up to 30 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus and would transform constitutional equality guarantees into barriers against remedies for racism.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]