The Supreme Court is likely to limit the scope of a landmark civil rights law that has long boosted Democratic representation in the House of Representatives, with Republicans set to gain potentially 12 seats or more, the Hill reported.
The case centers on a map in Louisiana that was redrawn to create an additional district where black voters can elect their preferred candidate. White voters in the state say the new map illegally discriminates on the basis of race, an argument that the conservative majority appears to be receptive towards.
When the Supreme Court teed up a rare second round of arguments, it was widely seen as a signal that big changes were forthcoming.
The case centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states to devise majority-minority districts to protect the voting power of racial minorities.
During the second round of arguments this month, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that race-based redistricting should eventually be phased out, echoing the court's reasoning for striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
“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,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. "But that they should not be indefinite and should have a end point.”
Similarly, Justice Neil Gorsuch sounded skeptical that states may “intentionally discriminate on the basis of race" to fulfill Voting Rights Act requirements.
The Supreme Court has limited the Voting Rights Act before, previously striking down a federal preclearance requirement limiting the freedom of states and localities to change voting practices.
Two of the court's conservatives, Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, seemed to breathe new life into the Voting Rights Act two years ago when they sided with the liberal wing in a controversy out of Alabama. But Roberts has also signaled that his decision-making in that case does not control how he will vote on the matter in Louisiana.
Long seen as the court's swing vote, Roberts has been a skeptic of racial formulas for years, writing in a 2006 case, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."
While the Voting Rights Act's advocates say it is critical to an inclusive democracy, critics of the law argue it has resulted in new forms of discrimination with no end in sight, leaving courts with a complicated legal mess to sort through. There is a sense that the justices would like to be rid of the "sordid business" once and for all.
Following this month's arguments, Louisiana's attorney general Liz Murrill (R) said the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Voting Rights Act is confusing even to the justices themselves.
The court, she said, has to “make some sense” of its own Section 2 precedents.
"And what we heard today is that that’s really hard — even for them,” she added.
To many, the question seems to be not whether the conservative majority will rein in race-based redistricting, but how far they will go.
A New York Times analysis predicts that Republicans across the South could gain over a dozen congressional seats if Section 2 is curtailed. Some liberal groups estimate as many as 19 new Republican districts.
“This case will test whether the arc of our universe still bends toward justice — or whether it has bent back upon itself,” Alanah Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, said in a statement.
