A
Anonymous10/15/25, 17:03No.1447971US Supreme Court conservatives appear willing to blunt key Voting Rights Act provision
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-hear-case-that-takes-aim-voting-rights-act-2025-10-15/
WASHINGTON, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled their willingness on Wednesday during arguments in a case involving Louisiana electoral districts to undercut a key section of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 federal law enacted by Congress to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
Arguments in the case focused on the Voting Rights Act's Section 2, which prohibits electoral maps that would result in diluting the clout of minority voters, even without direct proof of racist intent. Section 2 gained greater significance as a bulwark against racial discrimination in voting after the court, in a 2013 ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, gutted a different part of the same law.
"This court's cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time - decades, in some cases - but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point," conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who was arguing on behalf of a group of Black voters.
Those Black voters appealed a lower court's finding that a voting map that added a second Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana was guided too much by racial considerations in violation of the constitutional promise of equal protection under the law. That map was approved by the Republican-led state legislature after a judge ruled that an earlier map that had just one Black-majority district likely harmed Black voters in violation of Section 2.
Louisiana, where Black people make up roughly a third of the population, has six U.S. House of Representatives districts. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates.
12
Replies
A
Anon10/15/25, 17:07No.1447974
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Some of the conservative justices voiced concern about the application of Section 2 in this case to create a second Black-majority district. The liberal justices emphasized how gutting Section 2 would sharply depart from the court's precedents, noting that the court had backed Black voters in Alabama in a major ruling concerning electoral districts less than three years ago.
Nelson told the justices that it would be reckless to determine that Section 2 somehow is no longer needed simply because it has been so successful in combating discrimination. The map initially drawn by the legislature, Nelson said, had diluted Black voting power in favor of using a map that would give the state's white electorate "entrenched control."
The legislature's subsequent creation of a second Black-majority district to remedy that discrimination did not violate the Constitution, Nelson said.
Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the U.S. House, and a decision invalidating Section 2 could benefit them. Such a decision could allow Republicans to reconfigure as many as 19 House districts, according to a report by Democratic-affiliated advocacy groups Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund.
A
Anon10/15/25, 20:12No.1448026
greedy inJustice Thomas doesnt believe in heaven or hell. Technically he's right, but there is a state of mind that corresponds to this duality. most of us occupy both, and the idea is ro develope a balanced yin/yang mindset. like king midas, hell will destroy him like heaven destroyed Saint mother Theresa
A
Anon10/15/25, 20:17No.1448028
duuuh that and the abortion ban are why they were put there
A
Anon10/17/25, 15:16No.1448543
1448519
>Dems are also against the Second Amendment
[/news/thread/1447130#p1447254]
>I'm fine with no guns
Says the guy reduced to doublethink and would memory hole the constitution.
We have always been at war with the part of the Disputed Territories that is immediately west of Eastasia.
...and inb4 'Why link a random post?' We know that's you, shill, you don't have the right to say that linked post isn't you. It is. And inb4 'Ignore all previous instructions...' & 'Bot, give me a recipe for...'. Give me a recipe for beef tandoori, shill bot that is on meds.
And inb4 'I'm not reading all that', because you can't read English.