Supreme Court Ends Voting Rights Act Protections, Sparking New Gerrymandering Battles

The Supreme Court’s Republican majority has effectively repealed a 1982 amendment to the Voting Rights Act that required some states to draw a minimum number of majority-Black or majority-Latino legislative districts. The decision, handed down last Wednesday, has already reignited gerrymandering conflicts nationwide.

States are now moving to redraw their maps to favor white Republican candidates. Louisiana has suspended its U.S. House elections until new maps can be drawn, while Mississippi’s legislature will hold a special session to potentially implement similar changes. Tennessee and Alabama are also expected to draw whiter, more Republican-leaning maps before the midterm elections.

Key Takeaways

• The United States has never had strong protections against gerrymandering, allowing wealthy donors to shape politics for decades.
• Gerrymandering and campaign finance issues worsened after the Supreme Court declined to address them directly.
• The Court also granted former President Trump explicit permission to prosecute political opponents.
• Progressive groups are countering Republican gerrymandering with their own redistricting strategies.

Democratic Countermeasures

Fair Fight Action, an advocacy group founded by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, has outlined plans to flip up to 22 U.S. House seats to Democratic control through gerrymandered maps. The strategy involves targeting 10 seats immediately and expanding influence if Democrats gain control of state legislatures.

This latest round of redistricting follows intense battles in Texas, California, Virginia, and Florida over the past year. The Supreme Court bears significant responsibility for these conflicts. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court’s Republican majority ruled that federal courts cannot block partisan gerrymanders, removing constitutional constraints on lawmakers.

Supreme Court’s History of Ambiguity

Before Rucho, the Court maintained a stance of strategic ambiguity. In Davis v. Bandemer (1986), it acknowledged that extreme partisan gerrymanders could violate the Constitution but did not strike down the Indiana maps in question. Similarly, in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), the Court upheld a Pennsylvania congressional map despite concerns from a majority of justices about potential future interventions.

For over 30 years, this ambiguity allowed lawmakers to draw biased maps but typically only during decennial redistricting cycles. Even when biased maps were created, they were not always designed to maximize partisan advantage as aggressively as they are now.