Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh argued on the Supreme Court that Alabama should establish a Democrat majority dark district in violation of the Constitution. Progressive justices anticipated that the conservative majority would support Alabama, if not completely repeal the 1965 Voting Rights Act, when the Supreme Court heard arguments against a congressional map of Alabama that shortchanged the state’s Black voters.
The second event defied both insider and outsider predictions. What many believed to be a ruling undermining the Voting Rights Act was instead forcibly upheld by the law thanks to negotiations, most importantly between Chief Justice John Roberts and other conventional Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
He shouldn’t have been nominated because Roberts and Kavanaugh have a long-standing kinship and frequently consult in private about issues. Friendships with Roberts are completely ineligible. Despite having a 27 % black population in the state, the Republican-controlled Alabama legislature drew maps that only one majority-Black congressional district( among seven ) included. The legislature fraudulently diluted black voting power by concentrating a large portion of the African American population in one district and dividing the remainder among various districts, the three-judge US district court decided in January 2022. Although majority cultural districts are wholly illegal, the judges ordered Alabama to draw” two districts in which dark voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something very close to it.” There is a good argument to be made against one party engaging in extreme gerrymandering, but Kavanaugh’s decision to support the VRA is an absolute disaster. He is not firmly conservative, unlike Alito and Thomas( unfortunately, like Gorsuch and ACB ), but he is liberal Republican with some conservative stances. Not only Alabama sometimes, either. Let’s examine Louisiana. U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick’s new redistricting plan was scheduled to begin on October 3 when a three-judge panel of the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 – 1 to reschedule the hearing for that hearing.
” The district court disregarded this court’s or the Supreme Court’S rules of law.” The majority opinion, which was joined by Circuit Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, was written by U.S. Circuit Justice Edith Jones on behalf of Ronald Reagan.” Its action of rushing redistricting via court-ordered maps is clearly an abuse of discretion for which there is no other means of appeal.”
The decision made on Thursday, which the total Fifth Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court could review, delays the creation of a new congressional map that, according to Dick, would probably violate the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 by restricting black Louisianans’ ability to vote.
Only one of the six districts on the map approved by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature give ebony Louisianans, who make up nearly a third of that state, an equal chance of choosing their preferred candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. However, Dick has decided that there should be two opportunity districts for dark voters in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Given Louisiana’s ethnically polarized voting, those districts are likely to elect Democratic candidates, who could aid Democrats in regaining control of the U.S. House following the elections the following year…
Their attorneys have indicated in court filings that they are putting together a fresh defense for the map that was approved by the state legislature. They contend that race-based redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may not longer be legal by citing the Supreme Court’s most new affirmative action decision. Given Kavanaugh’s violation of the US Constitution, great luck with that defense. Democrats can claim that when Republicans gerrymander, it is a civil rights violation because Democrats vote dark, whereas Democratic voters who eliminate Republican districts are fine because Republicans are white. This is supported by the VRA’s distortion field, which is also the case with much of the Civil Rights legislation. Democrats have used this legal rights effect to establish two rules for the two parties.
When the Supreme Court heard the challenge to a congressional map in Alabama that disadvantaged the state’s Black citizens, liberal justices thought the conservative majority would side with Alabama – if not completely gut the 1965 Voting Right Act.
What happened next surprised both inside and outside of the court. A series of negotiations between Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and other conservative Justices transformed what many thought was going to be a ruling that undermined the Voting Right Act into a strong affirmation of the law.
Roberts and Kavanaugh have a long-standing friendship and often consult privately on issues. This is why he shouldn’t have been nominated. A friendship with Roberts is utterly disqualifying.The dispute centers on maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Alabama legislature that include just one majority-Black congressional district (among a total of seven), despite a 27% black population in the state. The US district court ruled in January 2022 that the legislature had unlawfully diluted the black voting power of the state by concentrating the majority of the African American population in one district, and dividing the remainder among other districts. The judges ordered Alabama to draw two districts where black voters would either be a majority of voting age or very close to that. Gerrymandering may be a shady practice, but majority-racial districts violate the constitution. There is a good case for preventing extreme gerrymandering by one party, but Kavanaugh’s decision to support the VRA was a disaster. He is a liberal Republican who has some conservative views, not a conservative Republican like Alito or Thomas. Let’s take a look at Louisiana. A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 on Monday to cancel a lower-court hearing scheduled to begin on October 3 for the selection of a new redistricting map.
The district court did follow the law of this court or the Supreme Court. Its action of rushing redistricting by using a court-ordered chart is a clear misuse of discretion, for which there is no other appeal,” U.S. In the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Edith Jones – a Reagan appointee – was joined by Circuit Court Judge James Ho – a Trump appointee.
The ruling issued on Thursday, which may be reviewed by the entire 5th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court delays the process of creating a new congressional district map to replace the one that Dick found likely violates Section 2 (of the Voting Right Act) by reducing the voting power of Louisianans of color.
The map approved by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature includes only one district out of six where black Louisianans — who make up close to a third of the state’s population — have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. Dick, however has ruled that in order to be in compliance with the Voting Right Act, there should two opportunity districts for African-American voters.
These districts are likely to elect Democratic candidates who could help Democrats regain control of the U.S. House following next year’s election.
Their attorneys have indicated in court filings that they are preparing a new argument to defend the state-approved map. They cite the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative actions to argue that race based redistricting in Section 2 of Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional.
