Your support helps us to tell the story Read more Support Now From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference. Read more

Louisiana will once again have to redraw its congressional maps after the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the creation of a second Black-majority district was an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” a ruling that could potentially help Republicans in upcoming elections.

In a 6-3 decision, the conservative majority of the court said the state relied too heavily on race to redraw its congressional map in 2024, despite the lines initially being redrawn to comply with a previous ruling that said the 2020 congressional map was also unconstitutional – for different reasons.

However, justices declined to intervene in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark statute that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

But the decision may have implications in the midterm elections, as it could prompt other Republican-led states to draw new maps that follow a looser interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The three-justice liberal wing of the court sharply dissented from the majority, warning that Wednesday’s decision could open the door to eliminating protections of the Voting Rights Act anyway.

open image in gallery Supreme Court ruling means Louisiana will have to redraw its congressional map again – but does not have the far-reaching implications that a ruling on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may have had ( Getty )

“If other States follow Louisiana’s lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And minority representation in government institutions will sharply decline,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent,” Kagan wrote.

open image in gallery ( Getty )

More than a decade after ruling against a critical component of the Voting Rights Act, the justices were once again asked to take aim at the decades-old civil rights law, which sought to release the grip of Jim Crow-era threats to the right to vote.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bans voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race. But if states don’t need to consider the racial impacts of how congressional districts are drawn, the consequences could be sweeping, opening the door for Republican lawmakers to eliminate Democratic-led districts across the South — and delivering a massive shot in the arm to the GOP’s gerrymandering arms race before midterm elections.

Republican officials and Trump administration attorneys argued that racial discrimination that led to the passage of the landmark law in 1965 should no longer apply in modern times.

Striking down those provisions to the landmark civil rights law will sharply limit the ability of lawmakers to use race as a factor in drawing voting maps — likely triggering a new wave of redistricting attempts.

The conservative-majority court agreed that a newly created congressional map in Louisiana that creates a second majority-Black district violates the same constitutional amendments that were drawn up to protect minority voters in the aftermath of the Civil War.

The court’s decision effectively prevents states from drawing up congressional districts that help minority voters elect candidates of their choice.

A redistricting war heading into midterm elections this fall follows a series of Supreme Court decisions that have gradually chipped away at the Voting Rights Act and constitutional guardrails to protect against racial gerrymandering, which is the carving up electoral maps to prevent racial minorities from electing their preferred candidates.

In a landmark case in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the law that required states with a history of discrimination to seek approval from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote at the time. “And while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

But he added that Section 2 “is permanent, applies nationwide, and is not at issue in this case.”

Black voters make up one-third of Louisiana’s population but were largely “packed” into one majority-Black district and “cracked” across the other five after the state crafted a new map after the 2020 census. Most Black voters in the state have voted for Democratic candidates.

After a Voting Rights Act lawsuit against the state, Louisiana was required to redraw its own congressional map to ensure a second majority-Black district.

In a rare move, the Supreme Court asked the parties to argue the case a second time — and expanded the scope of the case to tackle major constitutional questions that put Section 2 in jeopardy.

During oral arguments in October, several conservative justices asked whether there should be a time limit, or a cut-off point, when considering race as a factor in drawing congressional maps.

“What exactly do you think the end point should be?” Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.

NAACP Legal Defense Fund director Janai Nelson, who represented Black voters in the case, told the court that it would be “reckless” to determine that Section 2 “somehow is no longer needed simply because it has been so successful in rooting out racial discrimination in voting.”

This is a breaking news story, more follows...