Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais essentially guts Section
2 of the Voting Rights Act, wiping out 60 years of established jurisprudence.
Although the Court’s opinion claims to have simply revised its interpretation of the
law, it has now made it nearly impossible for plaintiffs to prove racial
gerrymandering. It requires plaintiffs to show a strong inference that racial
discrimination was the purpose of drawing a map, an extremely stringent legal
burden of proof.
Worse yet, the decision explicitly elevates partisan interest above race. It declares
that a states’ political interest may supersede voters’ interest in drawing maps that
give equal voice to minority voters.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Callais does not change what we know to be true:
fair maps are an essential component of free and fair elections,” said Ken Lawler,
Chair of Fair Districts GA. “When the Court weakens protections against racial vote
dilution, it gives politicians more room to manipulate districts and silence
communities that have already had to fight too hard to be heard. Fair Districts GA
believes that maps should fairly reflect Georgia voters in all respects. Politically,
maps should reflect Georgians’ desire for competitive elections. And maps should
continue to reflect Georgia’s communities in all respects, including demographic
diversity.”
The Callais decision does NOT require Georgia to adopt new maps. Given that
Georgia still has cases pending in Federal court about our maps, calls for a special
legislative session are premature, and are nothing more than a partisan power grab
in the middle of the decade. Georgia is already plagued with mid-decade partisan
redistricting.
This decision reinforces the need to reform redistricting to eliminate partisan bias
and ban mid-decade redistricting, positions that are supported by a majority of
Georgians.
We concur with Justice Kagan, who wrote: “The consequences are likely to be
far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter…. I
dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress
granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”
