Liberal Justices, Clarence Thomas Ignore Precedent to Strike Down 2 NC Congressional Districts

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that racial considerations pervaded the way North Carolina lawmakers drew congressional maps after the 2010 Census in order to maximize Republicans’ advantage.

The 5-3 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, was the latest in a series of decisions by the justices against the excessive use of race in redistricting, the decennial process of drawing new district lines for Congress and state legislatures. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court’s four liberal justices in striking down the state’s maps.

The high court in March demanded additional lower court review of 11 Virginia state legislature districts that Republicans designed with at least 55% black voting-age populations. That followed a decision against Alabama’s state legislative districts in 2015.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to First In Freedom Daily updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: NC Dems Losing It Over New Justice Barbara Jackson Campaign Ad

The North Carolina ruling upheld a federal district court decision that struck down the state’s 1st and 12th congressional districts because state lawmakers had packed African American voters into them, thereby minimizing the influence of black voters in other districts. Kagan said the 1st district “produced boundaries amplifying divisions between blacks and whites,” while in the 12th, “race, not politics, accounted for the district’s reconfiguration.”

Justice Samuel Alito dissented on the 12th district, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. They agreed with state officials that the district was drawn to help Republicans, not to disenfranchise black voters. The high court has never struck down political maps drawn to help one party, though a case from Wisconsin is likely to offer a new test next year.

“Partisan gerrymandering is always unsavory, but that is not the issue here,” Alito wrote. “So long as the legislature chose to retain the basic shape of District 12 and to increase the number of Democrats in the district, it was inevitable that the Democrats brought in would be disproportionately black.”

Alito also criticized the majority decision for failing to stand by a 2001 case in which the high court upheld a similar configuration for that district. “A precedent of this court should not be treated like a disposable household item — say, a paper plate or napkin — to be used once and then tossed in the trash,” he said.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that states draw districts enabling African Americans to elect their chosen representatives, lest black voters be spread too thinly across district lines. Two decades ago, Democrats used the law to demand so-called “majority-minority” districts.

Since Republicans took over many state legislatures in 2010, they have drawn districts with what African American and Democratic critics claim are more blacks than necessary, in order to keep surrounding districts whiter — and more Republican. But the Supreme Court has knocked down several of those maps.

“This is a watershed moment in the fight to end racial gerrymandering,” said Eric Holder, the former Democratic attorney general now chairing the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “Today’s ruling sends a stark message to legislatures and governors around the country: Racial gerrymandering is illegal and will be struck down in a court of law.”

But Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation said the ruling compounds “the confused state of the law.”

“The Supreme Court says race can be a factor in redistricting but not the predominant factor, a rule that is so vague, so broad, and so lacking in a definable legal standard that it is not really a rule at all,” he said.

READ FULL ARTICLE

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here