Diluting African American voting power comes back to bite in the South
Photo Via Associated Press
AAMIR JAMIL: The Supreme Court ruled this year that Alabama’s congressional map diluted the political power of African Americans earlier this year in Allen v. Milligan, averting a disastrous gutting of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that would kill its last enforcement mechanisms. Southern states, which were forced to cede voting rights and political power to African Americans after the act’s implementation, still struggle to follow the law. After Milligan, a cascade of court cases are popping up throughout the South with important ramifications for 2024 House elections and African American voting power.
While the Court has sometimes ruled against racial gerrymandering when race has unnecessarily been used to redraw maps, it has reliably ruled against states in cases where they have weakened the collective power of racial minorities, preventing them from electing candidates of their choice. In several Southern states, African American voters are bringing lawsuits to challenge recently-adopted maps on those lines.
Despite the Milligan decision, the Alabama legislature decided not to comply with creating a second majority-African American district to better reflect the African American population that makes up about a third of the state population. The legislature instead chose to raise the proportion of African American voters in the second district from 30 percent to about 40 percent in their proposal. In a hearing to review the new map, a federal court was less than amused, striking it down and ordering a neutral authority to draw a new map. Hoping to get the Supreme Court to pause the decision, the state appealed and argued that redrawing to increase minority representation is a form of racial gerrymandering. The Court, despite the hopes of some, refused to intervene. The remedial map was selected out of three proposals by the federal court for the 2024 elections, with the newly redrawn district expected to elect an African American Democrat. Still, the state could potentially bring a separate case in the near future to try to end Section 2 protections on the basis of racial gerrymandering.
In Louisiana, African Americans also make up about a third of the population, but only one of six districts is represented by a Democrat. Despite Governor John Bel Edwards’ (D) veto on redistricting, Louisiana Republicans in the state legislature overrode him to maintain the status quo. In 2022, a federal judge struck down the map, but the state appealed and successfully received a hold on the decision from the Supreme Court as it decided Milligan. After deciding Milligan, the Supreme Court unfroze the Louisiana case, returning it to the Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit, which recently chose to slow down the process, canceling a hearing by the judge in early October to review new maps so that a separate appellate panel could hear the official appeal later this fall. States have previously relied on delaying decisions while appeals go through the court system to later argue that a redrawing would be too close to an election. This is the main reason the Courts did not address the maps before the 2022 election. While one would imagine that the case is straightforward with new precedent, the Fifth Circuit is the most conservative in the nation.
While 17 percent of Floridians are African American, only one of 28 districts are majority-African American. Unlike in Alabama and Louisiana, however, theFlorida state legislature was going to maintain a majority African-American district until Governor Ron DeSantis forced the legislature to erase the district in April. Once again, voters stood up for their political rights and sued. A state judge recently threw out the maps for gerrymandering, ruling that the legislature violated Florida’s anti-gerrymandering amendment. As this case awaits review by the Florida Supreme Court, voters have brought another lawsuit against Florida in federal court. Arguing DeSantis wanted to redraw an unconstitutional district that was the result of racial gerrymandering, the state tried to defend eliminating African American representation in north Florida in its first hearing. The judge was skeptical, citing Milligan and a Florida Supreme Court decision that compelled the drawing of the district in 2015.
Georgia voters similarly have brought a lawsuit stating that congressional and legislative maps lacked majority-minority representation. While a federal judge preliminarily ruled that parts of the redistricting plans were unconstitutional, a trial occurred in September to review more information and incorporate Milligan’s logic. As in the rest of the states, voters assert that African American voting power was diluted, while Georgia argues that equal protection would be violated by racial gerrymandering. Even though a decision has not been released, Georgia Democrats are already preparing to run in the presumably new district. The case could still be a long-shot, as five of the 14 districts are majority-African American while African Americans make up a third of Georgia’s population.
The last case is a little different, but the facts are similar. South Carolina only has one majority-minority district, despite African Americans constituting a third of the state’s population. But unlike those in Louisiana, Florida, and Georgia, South Carolina’s case has already reached the Supreme Court on different claims. In the upcoming fall term, the Court will determine whether the state legislature racially gerrymandered African Americans out of the first district to solidify Representative Nancy Mace’s (R) election chances. Rather than diluting voting power, though, advocates here say race was only used as a means to a political end; a lower Court sided with the plaintiffs in January. Courts have struggled in the past to differentiate between racial and political gerrymandering, as African Americans are overwhelmingly Democratic. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has opposed the Voting Rights Act for decades, saved Section 2 and the voter dilution precedent, but is expected to rule differently on racial gerrymandering. The Court heard arguments earlier in October and indicated skepticism to the arguments by voters.
Southern states have packed minority communities through racial gerrymandering and cracked the communities through vote dilution for decades, but Milligan reaffirms the spirit of the Voting Rights Act to establish fair representation. While these cases slowly move through the courts, the new map in Alabama and potentially new maps in other states could single-handedly give Democrats the House of Representatives in 2024. However, as states fight back and continue to appeal, the redistricting brawl could continue well into the future with no definite conclusion.
Aamir Jamil is a columnist for On the Record. He is from New Jersey and is a freshman studying government and Spanish in the College. He is interested in the roles policy and law play in politics.