Key takeaways:
- The Supreme Court has allowed Republican-led Galveston County to use a 2021 map for the upcoming election, despite the fact that it wiped out the county’s only majority-minority precinct in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
- The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has been asked to take up the case en banc and reverse its decision, as the Supreme Court’s decision has raised questions about the protection of minority voting rights.
- The Supreme Court’s decision has implications for other states and counties that are considering similar maps, as it sets a precedent that could be used to justify the use of racially gerrymandered maps in the future.
The Supreme Court has allowed Republican-led Galveston County to use a map drawn in 2021 for the upcoming election, despite the fact that a district court judge had previously approved a map that was “concededly lawful” and nearly identical to the maps that have governed the election of Galveston County’s commissioners in the past.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the conservative majority’s brief order, as the map in question had wiped out the county’s only majority-minority precinct in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel had unanimously affirmed the district court’s decision, but reluctantly, as they argued that the VRA does not actually protect districts composed of multiple minority groups.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the use of the 2021 map has raised concerns about the future of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a brief dissenting opinion that the court’s decision means that a map that a district court judge had subsequently approved, which will now not be used, was “concededly lawful” and nearly identical to the maps that have governed the election of Galveston County’s commissioners in the past.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has been asked to take up the case en banc and reverse its decision, as the Supreme Court’s decision has raised questions about the protection of minority voting rights. The Supreme Court’s decision has been met with criticism from civil rights groups, who argue that the decision undermines the VRA and will have a detrimental effect on minority voters.
The Supreme Court’s decision has implications for other states and counties that are considering similar maps, as it sets a precedent that could be used to justify the use of racially gerrymandered maps in the future. The decision has been met with criticism from civil rights groups, who argue that it undermines the VRA and will have a detrimental effect on minority voters.
Be First to Comment