05/20/2026
SUPREME COURT GUTS VOTING RIGHTS
A recent decision by the six Republicans on the Supreme Court provides a way for states easily to render the15th Amendment useless for its intended purpose of protecting minority voting rights. Welcome back Jim Crow. And best regards to the six from Roger Taney in the grave.
Voting rights are crucial to our democracy, and deserve the strongest protection. No reasonable person could seriously believe that the court’s destruction of those rights is required by the 14th Amendment, is permitted by the 15th Amendment or by the Voting Rights Act enforcing that Amendment, or is consistent with a functioning democracy.
Louisiana drew one of its eight Congressional districts to give minorities a likelihood of electing a person of their choice to the House. It did so because otherwise Louisiana’s overall district map was discriminatory and would have violated the Voting Rights Act. That 8th district was then challenged on the grounds that it racially discriminated against Whites in violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.
Outrageously, the court agreed. The Republican Justices decided that compliance with the Voting Rights Act could not be a defense to a charge of violation of the equal protection clause, unless that Act were interpreted to protect against racially based district maps only if they were intended to be racially discriminatory. That interpretation is contrary to the language of the Act, to Congressional intent and to prior Supreme Court decisions, which demonstrates the six Republicans’ extreme hostility to minority representation.
The six then constructed a process that makes it practically impossible to show intentional discrimination. It also concluded that Voting Rights Act protection was no longer as needed as when the Act was adopted in 1965. Clearly not the court’s job.
The six concluded that the Voting Rights Act did not require a minority district because the overall district map was not proved to be intentionally discriminatory. Thus, required compliance with that Act could not be used as a defense against the charge that the configuration of the 8th district racially discriminated (against Whites).
Justice Kagan wrote the dissent:
“. . . I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”
Drastic corrective action is essential, including regulating partisan gerrymandering and increasing the number of justices.
