Melissa Murray

But as Justice Kagan said in her dissent, it is effectively the evisceration of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

And to understand what she means by that, I think you have to understand the procedural posture of this case and what the case is actually about.

Right.

One thing to note here was that back in 2023, the court took up a very similar case called Allen versus Milligan.

It was about Alabama's congressional map that was drawn in the wake of the 2020 census.

Alabama essentially packed its black citizens into one district.

That map was challenged as an impermissible racial gerrymander under Section 2.

A lower court agreed it was an impermissible gerrymander.

racial gerrymander, and it ordered Alabama to draw a new map with more representation for African Americans.

And so Alabama drew a map with two voter opportunity districts where minority voters would have the opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice.

Fast forward to October term 2022, but June 2023, when the court issued its decision in Allen v. Milligan, the map that had been drawn, the second map with the two voter opportunity districts, had been challenged as itself an impermissible racial gerrymander because...

They were thinking about race when they were trying to remedy the racial discrimination of the initial map, which seems right.

You have to think about race if you're trying to vindicate the interests of minority voters after the state has screwed over the minority voters with the first map.

And the court in that case said, this map is fine by six to three votes.

So they upheld the new map with the two minority opportunity districts.

Subsequently, the same thing happened in Louisiana.

So it's a virtually identical case.

Louisiana draws its maps after the census.

It makes one opportunity district for black voters, even though black voters comprise about a third of the Louisiana electorate.

A court says it's an impermissible racial gerrymander, orders the state to draw two new districts.