By Mel Wilson, LCSW, MBA
The USA Supreme Courtroom on June 8 made an vital and sudden resolution by rejecting Alabama’s gerrymandered redistricting map that grossly diluted the Black vote.
The vote was a slender 5–4 resolution that held Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Had the Courtroom upheld Alabama’s redrawn map, it could have eradicated one of many remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act.
The core concern of the case was figuring out if the congressional map adopted by Alabama lawmakers illegally watered-down the Black vote. It must be remembered that from the tip of Reconstruction in 1877 till 1992 (when the State was pressured by the Courtroom to redraw its Congressional Districts) Alabama elected no Black members of Congress.
Even after the 1992 change, the state had just one Black member of Congress, regardless of the actual fact African Individuals account for 27 % of the state’s inhabitants.
Due to Alabama’s historical past of suppressing and outright denying African Individuals the vote, many voting rights advocates held out little hope that Courtroom would rule towards Alabama within the Allen v. Milligan case.
Though the court docket’s favorable judgement got here as a shock, voting rights advocates shortly acknowledged its significance, and enthusiastically welcomed it.
The Milligan ruling comes at a time when a robust anti-democratic environment pervades inside many factions on this nation. Nevertheless, we should guard towards assuming that Milligan alerts a systemic problem to the enemies of democracy on the a part of the Supreme Courtroom.
A extra prudent response to the choice could be to embrace it whereas cautiously making the most of this chance to strengthen a fragile Voter Rights Act.
Above all, we should not lose sight of the proven fact that there was a steady increase of voter suppression laws and policies over the previous decade. It’s deeply regarding this pattern continues. It should not be ignored.
Ruling Might Result in Democrats Taking Extra Seats in U.S. Home
Subsequently, it’s heartening the voting rights advocacy neighborhood appears to be placing the Milligan ruling in correct context. There seems to be an rising consensus on a technique of not viewing the Milligan case in isolation by instantly tying the totality of defending voting rights to the 2024 presidential election.
The technique is pushed by the conclusion that the outcomes of Milligan paradoxically opened up the possibility that the Democrats can regain management of the Home of Representatives in 2024.
Considerably, the Cook dinner Political Report – thought of the gold commonplace for political evaluation – projected that as many as five House seats could go in the Democrats’ direction.
It’s because there are comparable redistricting challenges in a number of different states which, if overturned, will lead to extra Congressional Districts that might flip blue.
For instance, final 12 months a federal district court docket ordered the state’s congressional map to be redrawn in Louisiana. Due to the Allen v. Milligan ruling, Louisiana will probably need to create an extra Black district.
Along with Alabama and Louisiana, Georgia’s congressional map could also be required to be redrawn leading to an extra Black district in time for the 2024 elections.
Voting Rights Nonetheless in Jeopardy
Nevertheless, whereas the choice was effectively obtained, the erosion of voting rights protections has not abated on account of the Milligan ruling. The underside line is that upholding Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act is by itself will not be enough for staving off these threats.
The truth is, gerrymandering lawsuits primarily based on violations of Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act have had only limited success in the courts.
What the present spate of voter suppression and anti-democracy legal guidelines and insurance policies tells us is that we can’t cross our fingers with the hope that the Supreme Courtroom will function the protector of voting rights. Given the conservative make-up of the Courtroom that’s extremely unlikely.
What is required is a strengthened Voting Rights Act that displays the realities of twenty first century America. It’s ironic the landmark Supreme Courtroom resolution of Shelby County v. Holder – which gutted one other key provision of the Voting Rights Act – is now 10 years outdated.
Throughout that point, Congress has tried, to no avail, to move laws that will restore protections misplaced in Shelby v. Holder. Each effort has been made to rekindle laws such because the John Lewis Voter Rights Restoration Act, which handed the Home in 2021, however did not get Senate approval.
It sure that laws {that a} strengthens the Voters Rights Act won’t turn into legislation until there’s a Democratic majority within the Home and Senate. To be able to obtain that goal, social staff and different social justice advocates need to turn into totally engaged within the 2024 elections. The lack of the White Home and each homes of Congress won’t solely doom truthful elections, however most human and civil rights as we all know them.
Sources:
American Civil Liberties Union: Historic Win: U.S. Supreme Court Rules Alabama’s Congressional Map Violates the Voting Rights Act by Diluting Black Political Power
Brennen Middle for Justice: A Rare Win for Voting Rights at the Supreme Court
Management Convention for Civil and Human Rights: Civil Rights Coalition Praises Supreme Court’s Decision to Protect Freedom to Vote, Renews Call for Congressional Action to Restore the Voting Rights Act
Nationwide Affiliation for the Development of Coloured Individuals (NAACP): NAACP Applauds SCOTUS Ruling to Protect Voting Rights
Disclaimer: The Nationwide Affiliation of Social Employees invitations members to share their experience and experiences via Member Voices. This weblog was ready by Mel Wilson in his private capability and doesn’t essentially mirror the view of the Nationwide Affiliation of Social Employees.
Mel Wilson, LCSW, MBA, is a former senior coverage advisor who continues to be lively on a variety social coverage space together with youth justice, immigration, felony justice, and drug coverage. He’s a co-chairperson on the Justice Roundtable’s Drug Coverage Reform Working Group.
