<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1664831484221,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1664831484221,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_64831481", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1102553"} }); ","_id":"00000183-9faf-d69e-a3a7-bfbf7c960000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video EmbedAfter Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson‘s first day on the bench, she and the eight other high court justices must reckon with the complex issues surrounding racial gerrymandering during Tuesday’s oral arguments in Merrill v. Milligan, a case over whether Alabama‘s 2021 congressional redistricting map violates the Voting Rights Act.
Jackson, the first black woman to be named a high court justice, joins a bench whose 6-3 conservative majority under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts has grown increasingly skeptical of using race as a factor in drawing election district maps or admitting students to colleges, even if the long-term goal is to remedy past injustices or further improve diversity.
Tuesday marks the first oral arguments surrounding two high-profile redistricting challenges in the term, in which the high court could redefine congressional maps and who has the power to alter them.
Thomas Cooke, a professor of business law at Georgetown University, told the Washington Examiner the question is: “How far will this court allow the legislators to go in redesigning, redrawing up their maps?”
Cooke also said he is looking forward to Jackson’s framing and way of questioning, adding that it will offer a glimpse to observe just “how much influence she has on her brethren and getting maybe some of them to change their opinion, change their mind.”
ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND SLAMS SUPREME COURT OVER VOTING RIGHTS DECISIONS
In January, a panel of federal judges ordered Alabama to draw a new map that includes two majority-black districts, holding that the state’s original plan, which only held one such district out of the state’s seven, was likely in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which disallows voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race.
Before Jackson joined the high court, justices ruled 5-4 in February to place the lower court order on hold, allowing Alabama to implement its initial plan for the 2022 midterm elections, and scheduled oral arguments for the first week of the Supreme Court’s nine-month 2022-23 term.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) filed a brief to the Supreme Court on Aug. 24, arguing that the Voting Rights Act strictly prohibits rules denying voting rights “on account of race,” not a specific obligation to redistrict due to race.
“As we have explained throughout this litigation, Alabama’s 2021 plan is an ordinary plan that looks much like the plan approved by a federal court in 1992, the plan approved by a majority-Democratic legislature in 2001, and the plan approved by a majority-Republican legislature in 2011,” Marshall wrote in a February statement.
However, plaintiffs who attained victory before a federal three-judge panel in January interpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act differently, arguing the state congressional map should include two majority-minority districts.
The “majority-minority and crossover districts play a critical role in increasing meaningful representation, advancing racial integration, and remedying past discrimination,” Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) wrote in a brief filed in July on behalf of the plaintiffs.
But attorneys for the state of Alabama also contended that the lower court ruling should be held as constitutionally suspect under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, saying it denies lawmakers’ ability to make distinctions based explicitly on race or gender.
Justice Elena Kagan, one of three justices in the dissenting liberal minority, wrote in February that the decision to uphold the GOP-drawn congressional map “does a disservice to the District Court, which meticulously applied this Court’s longstanding voting-rights precedent.” Roberts, the chief justice, was just one of six Republican-appointed justices to join the minority vote.
Cooke said he is “somewhat concerned by the 5-4 vote back in February,” saying that court-watchers question whether that decision is indicative of how the justices might vote after their second examination of the case. “This time around should be the very same argument,” Cooke added.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
If the majority on the court upheld the previous ruling from February, it could have massive implications not only in Alabama but for similar cases in Georgia and Louisiana, where lower courts already found that Section 2 requires redrawing of congressional maps to create additional majority-minority districts.
Cases also in Washington, Texas, North Dakota, and other states where voters have filed litigation seeking the formation of additional majority-minority districts for legislative or congressional offices could be affected by the court’s final decision.
