"The conservative majority on the US supreme court appeared poised to weaken a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act after a lengthy oral argument on Wednesday. This court's cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time. Sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint."
"The case, Louisiana v Callais, involves a dispute over Louisiana's sixth congressional district, which snakes from Shreveport in the state's north-west to Baton Rouge in the center. Louisiana Republicans drew the district after a successful lawsuit filed by Black voters under section two of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws election procedures and practices that discriminate on the basis of race."
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled willingness to weaken core protections of the Voting Rights Act after lengthy oral argument. Justices questioned how long race-based remedies should remain in effect and whether those remedies require a clear endpoint. The case Louisiana v Callais centers on Louisiana’s sixth congressional district, drawn after Black voters sued under Section 2, and the state map change that increased majority-Black districts from one to two. The court asked whether creating an additional majority-minority district violates the 14th and 15th Amendments and whether Section 2 itself remains constitutionally permissible.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]