SCOTUS Limits Voting Rights Act

One of the most critical Supreme Courts decisions of recent years, with regards to Congressional redistricting and the makeup of the House, came down this morning, and it's bad news for Democrats.

In a 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the protection of the Voting Rights Act is limited to "majority-minority" districts, or districts where a particular racial minority reaches or exceeds 50% of the population.

Where this is potentially damaging to Democrats is in districts with substantial minority populations - say, a 40% black district - where minorities and white Democrats combine to elect a Democratic, generally minority-friendly Representative.

Examples of such a district would be the Indianapolis-centered IN-07 (30% black, represented by Andre Carson) and the Savannah-centered GA-12 (45% black, represented by John Barrow). Under the new decision, such districts are not protected by the VRA, so they can be redrawn into any shape

Now, legislatures can still draw such districts - a Democratic legislature could do that whenever they wanted. The problem is that there is nothing preventing Republicans from doing the opposite - from diluting the voting power of minorities and white Democrats in such districts as they see fit.

Conversely, there's nothing to stop Republicans from "packing" minorities in supercharged districts to minimize the number of minorities outside the districts.

Here's SSP's Crisitunity's take on this:

The news isn't good: in a party-line 5-4 decision (plurality authored by Justice Kennedy), the court held that the VRA does not require the creation of new districts that are intended to elect a minority representative ('crossover' or 'coalition' districts) but where that minority does not actually constitute 50% of the district's population.

Now, there's one key detail that makes this not as dire as it first sounds. Kennedy made it clear that state legislatures may still create a district that has less than 50% of a particular minority even if the intent of the district is to elect a minority representative (via a coalition of various minorities, or minorities plus liberal whites). It is simply not required as a remedy under the VRA in response to previous instances of vote dilution. However, the federal government cannot compel the creation of such a district. (Unless, as DavidNYC pointed out, Congress steps into the fray and rewrites VRA section 2. That may be too much of a political football to take on right now, though.)

Bartlett v. Strickland stems from a 2007 North Carolina Supreme Court decision, where the NC court struck down a district that was 39% African-American, created with the intention of electing an African-American, on the grounds that the district violated state law by unnecessarily crossing county lines. Civil rights groups appealed, saying that such coalition districts help to reduce racial polarization by requiring minority candidates to receive at least some backing from white voters.

How will this shake down in terms of redistricting? Well, it makes control of the redistricting process even more important. Democrats can't go to the courts to protect, say, IN-07 if Indiana Republicans decide they want to carve up Indianapolis.

It may not make any difference in Indianapolis, where Democrats control redistricting, but in Georgia or Texas or Indiana, it could be problematic.