Why the US Supreme Court made this map illegal

And it could swing the 2024 elections.

In 2013, a divided Supreme Court gutted one of the major pillars of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In the 10 years since then, the court has moved even farther to the right. So when the Voting Rights Act came before the Supreme Court again in 2022, it didn’t look good for the law. But then something completely unexpected happened: in a 5-4 decision, two of the conservative justices voted with the 3 liberal justices to preserve the Voting Rights Act. And the effects could be huge.

At stake in the case was the way that Alabama divides up its Congressional districts. Alabama has seven districts, one of which is what’s called a “majority-minority district” in which Black Americans are the majority of the population. In 2022, a group of Black voters sued the state, saying that under the law, Alabama should actually have two majority-minority districts. And the Supreme Court agreed.

The reason this matters to the rest of the country is that Alabama’s not alone — several other states in the south are now vulnerable to similar challenges that would increase the number of majority-minority districts. And especially in a region of the country where voting is racially polarized — where white people overwhelmingly vote Republican and Black people vote Democrat — this decision has the potential to flip multiple Congressional seats in the next election. And in a US House of Representatives where Republicans only hold control by a margin of 10 votes or so, that’s a big deal.

Sources and further reading:

[davebalmada]

I will never understand how the US doesn’t have impartial Supreme Court judges. How can they have an alliance to a party and be a judge? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of being a judge?

[TheNotSoMysteriousG]

Two conservative judges who actually care about conservative values and not, you know, just worshiping the Republican party? Thats… very nice actually.

[Awesome_Aasim]

The fact is that mathematically congressional districts are a terrible idea and we should move towards a proportional voting system.

[CaptHiltz]

Why do we still allow the two major parties to even redistrict the maps? You can't tell me that each state can't put together an impartial committee.

[thefreudiantheoryofpenisen]

Can we hold out hope that at least some of the judges still believe on makeing decisions based upon the law and not partisan politics?

[karmakazi]

It's a sad state of affairs when people are "surprised" that 2 Supreme Court justices did the right thing.

[cmndrkool]

We should just give up on districts and go with good old fashioned voting.

[fractal_sight]

I appreciate the fact that Vox had both district and demographic maps, and that they were overlayed.

I looked for those maps for ages when the news first broke, and was frustrated I couldn’t find it. Keep up the great work!

[ramshacklealex]

I can't remember the last time I heard about a US Supreme Court ruling upholding rights rather than removing them

[Zambonini]

The moment you can divide the judges of the highes court into members of political parties is the moment you should realise something is going horribly wrong.

[MrGrislyTooth]

As somebody that lives in the sister state to Alabama I'm incredibly happy about this Supreme Court decision because there's so much of this that goes on.

[PshemekS]

Drawing election districts based on the race of the people living in a certain town or village is the 1st example of something that sounds like "systemic racism" in my dictionary. Thank you for this example.

[shadowfax]

As a foreigner from a third world “flawed” democracy, where the Supreme Court judges regularly go against the President/Party that appointed them and uphold the constitution and rights, I don’t understand this partisanship in the US courts. How is this normal?

[sethlmcwilliams]

as an alabamian, i wholeheartedly feel it’s extremely important for every citizen to hold, and maintain representation, this ruling was a great step in the right direction

[kawaiilette]

Great explanation Vox! This kind of thing can be super confusing for alot of people, we need more of these!

[Sacrer]

When Americans see a not politically divided choice: "We don't really know why these two conservative justices chose to preserve the Voting Rights Act."

[opalishmoth]

When I saw the title my reaction was “oh god what did they do this time”

But turns out they did their job. I am genuinely surprised.

[judelarkin]

We need more journalism like this. Explaining things like gerrymandering rather than just saying it’s a thing and it’s bad.

[jonathanoneill]

Just make the maps based on population and review the boundaries before each election. It’s what we do in Australia and it works pretty well. Each seat (district) has a similar population. This means remote/rural areas have a much larger area, whereas inner city/metropolitan areas are smaller and more dense.

[nickhiscock]

In Australia these electoral districts are determined by population number typically 100k per district. They are defined from the centre of the state capital out to state borders. The laws that govern this are controlled by an independent public service organisation called the Australian Electoral Commission. It is an organisation whos whole remit is independence from the government and fair accurate elections.

Perhaps America needs something similar to take politics out of voting itself?