Reuters: "US Supreme Court under Roberts takes 'wrecking ball' to Voting Rights Act"

"In a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday powered by its conservative justices, the court gutted what scholars said was the last remaining pillar of the landmark law enacted after the "Bloody Sunday" march in Selma, Alabama with the aim of ‌preventing racial discrimination in voting."

"The decision, which blocked an electoral map that had given Louisiana a second Black-majority U.S. House of Representatives district, will make it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the landmark civil rights law."

"The ruling was issued with congressional elections looming in November, as President Donald Trump's fellow Republicans fight to maintain control of both the House and Senate. Trump hailed Wednesday's ruling and said he thinks Republican-led states would now want to reconfigure their voting maps."

"Supporters of the ruling, including John Yoo, who served as a Justice Department lawyer under Republican President George W. Bush, said it "continues the court's ⁠campaign to ensure that the government obeys a color-blind Constitution."

"The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Roberts and the four other conservative justices. It said the focus of Section 2 must center on the Constitution's prohibition on intentional racial discrimination under its 15th Amendment."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-under-roberts-takes-wrecking-ball-voting-rights-act-2026-04-30/

Gotta ensure the rights of all those poorly treated and discriminated against white people...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"In a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday powered by its conservative justices, the court gutted what scholars said was the last remaining pillar of the landmark law enacted after the "Bloody Sunday" march in Selma, Alabama with the aim of ‌preventing racial discrimination in voting."

"The decision, which blocked an electoral map that had given Louisiana a second Black-majority U.S. House of Representatives district, will make it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the landmark civil rights law."

"The ruling was issued with congressional elections looming in November, as President Donald Trump's fellow Republicans fight to maintain control of both the House and Senate. Trump hailed Wednesday's ruling and said he thinks Republican-led states would now want to reconfigure their voting maps."

"Supporters of the ruling, including John Yoo, who served as a Justice Department lawyer under Republican President George W. Bush, said it "continues the court's ⁠campaign to ensure that the government obeys a color-blind Constitution."

"The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Roberts and the four other conservative justices. It said the focus of Section 2 must center on the Constitution's prohibition on intentional racial discrimination under its 15th Amendment."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-under-roberts-takes-wrecking-ball-voting-rights-act-2026-04-30/

Gotta ensure the rights of all those poorly treated and discriminated against white people...

Gutted?   Can you explain to me why the voting rights act requires majority minority districts? A good place to start would be reading the voting rights act.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Gutted?   Can you explain to me why the voting rights act requires majority minority districts? A good place to start would be reading the voting rights act.

Don’t get get me wrong, there may be good, moral ethical, arguments for majority minority house districts. I’ll save you the work though. This concept is certainly not part of the voting rights act.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Gutted?   Can you explain to me why the voting rights act requires majority minority districts? A good place to start would be reading the voting rights act.

Really!? That's your response? Take the case presently in question in Louisiana wherein a majority of black voters will have their democratically elected representative, currently two and likely reduced to one or even more likely, none, and removed via Republican action so that all of them will have no choice but to have their voting bloc represented by white Republicans. That's the story in much of the deep south, too.  Oh, sure, they can still vote...without the hope or possibility that the representative who is elected will represent them in the first place...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Really!? That's your response? Take the case presently in question in Louisiana wherein a majority of black voters will have their democratically elected representative, currently two and likely reduced to one or even more likely, none, and removed via Republican action so that all of them will have no choice but to have their voting bloc represented by white Republicans. That's the story in much of the deep south, too.  Oh, sure, they can still vote...without the hope or possibility that the representative who is elected will represent them in the first place...

The perspective of those who are affected by it:     https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-act-black-americans-political-representation-a4eeb2367a33d99a54fa1d3cd36bdbf7

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The perspective of those who are affected by it:     https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-act-black-americans-political-representation-a4eeb2367a33d99a54fa1d3cd36bdbf7

Like I said, there may be very good reasons for having majority-minority house districts.   Did you not read that part, or do you not believe me?

The voting rights act does not require majority-minority districts, so the argument that the Supreme Court gutted the act is really stupid.  Racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional.   Those who argue that majority-minority districts are the only way to have black representatives are being terribly patronizing in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Really!? That's your response? Take the case presently in question in Louisiana wherein a majority of black voters will have their democratically elected representative, currently two and likely reduced to one or even more likely, none, and removed via Republican action so that all of them will have no choice but to have their voting bloc represented by white Republicans. That's the story in much of the deep south, too.  Oh, sure, they can still vote...without the hope or possibility that the representative who is elected will represent them in the first place...

Do you feel just as bad for the rural Californians in the central valley who now, thanks to your vote, "will have no choice but to have their voting bloc represented by Democrats."  

Of course you don't.  The Court is striving to be colorblind.  Racial gerrymandering for or against any particular race is unconstitutional.  Isn't that what MLK would have preferred?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Like I said, there may be very good reasons for having majority-minority house districts.   Did you not read that part, or do you not believe me?

The voting rights act does not require majority-minority districts, so the argument that the Supreme Court gutted the act is really stupid.  Racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional.   Those who argue that majority-minority districts are the only way to have black representatives are being terribly patronizing in my opinion.

I saw this post after submitting mine so we crossed at about the same time.

As has been discussed in prior cases in regards to racial gerrymandering, the bar to prove it exists to the cons on SCOTUS in general and Alito in particular is so high that the case on it might as well not exist. They simply will not accept that it occurs.

On edit: An attempt to present both sides from an article in TheHill:    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5859899-voting-rights-act-supreme-court/

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I saw this post after submitting mine so we crossed at about the same time.

As has been discussed in prior cases in regards to racial gerrymandering, the bar to prove it exists to the cons on SCOTUS in general and Alito in particular is so high that the case on it might as well not exist. They simply will not accept that it occurs.

On edit: An attempt to present both sides from an article in TheHill:    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5859899-voting-rights-act-supreme-court/

In most states, the state legislature controls redistricting, and, as we all know, that often leads to partisan redistricting. Until redistricting is taken out of the hands of state legislatures and replaced with an independent or bipartisan method universally employed, redistricting political battles are inevitable. I guess that, over time, redistricting will once again reach a steady state that is not too different from what we have now. Let the redistricting wars commence! And I hope that both parties play hardball, which is the only way to level the playing field currently.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

In most states, the state legislature controls redistricting, and, as we all know, that often leads to partisan redistricting. Until redistricting is taken out of the hands of state legislatures and replaced with an independent or bipartisan method universally employed, redistricting political battles are inevitable. I guess that, over time, redistricting will once again reach a steady state that is not too different from what we have now. Let the redistricting wars commence! And I hope that both parties play hardball, which is the only way to level the playing field currently.

"In most states, the state legislature controls redistricting, and, as we all know, that often leads to partisan redistricting. Until redistricting is taken out of the hands of state legislatures"

Actually, it's been enabled by SCOTUS (and currently utilized by the southern states on steroids) as this reporting in TheHill details:


"Supreme Court VRA ruling encourages new redistricting..."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5860114-redistricting-battle-states-midterms/

For an opinion on the matter:     https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V2ho_o85qGM