Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

High Court Sticks With Flawed Racial‐​Redistricting Standard

by June 8, 2023
June 8, 2023

Walter Olson

In a long line of cases on race and redistricting, the Supreme Court has generally ruled that some race‐​conscious line drawing is okay in applying the federal Voting Rights Act, so long as things don’t go overboard with crazy lines and such. “Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions,” warned Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the first case in this series, Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I, 1993). A 1995 case, Miller v. Johnson, further established that a map will generally be struck down if race was the “overriding, predominant” force in its inception.

These rules, together with the interpretive framework laid out in a 1986 case called Gingles, have long been open to a practical and a constitutional objection. The practical objection is that they have proved incoherent in operation, with lower courts deciding cases inconsistently and the outcome of cases hard to predict. What, exactly, does it mean for race to be “predominant” as a force? The constitutional objection is that the nation’s governing document disfavors treating voters and citizens differently according to race, and that what exceptions there may be to this principle, such as remedial use of race to correct past violations, are fading in significance. If race is an improper ground for government action, why should it be approved or even required in redistricting so long as it stops short of being “predominant”?

In Allen v. Milligan today, a five‐​Justice majority of the Supreme Court resisted the logic of both the practical and the constitutional critique, upholding a lower court ruling that had ordered race‐​based redistricting in Alabama to create a second black‐​majority U.S. House seat. It’s a long and complex set of opinions and I’ll stick to a couple of highlights:

As colleague Ilya Somin points out, what determined the outcome today may have been Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s embrace of the view that even a very ill‐​considered interpretation given by earlier Courts to statutory language should generally be followed as stare decisis. This applies more to statutes than it does to constitutional interpretation, since Congress has long been free to correct the language of the Voting Rights Act that resulted in the rickety Gingles test, but has not done so.
Four Justices suggested the lower court opinion would flunk even the lax current standard since race did, in fact, predominate in the minds of plaintiff experts proposing alternative maps. In fact, when computers were used to generate millions of random maps, not one created a second black‐​majority district in Alabama. Only when the computer was specifically instructed to consider race did this happen.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who unexpectedly brought the liberals their victory today, nonetheless came under immediate fire for supposed inconsistency because he had voted differently on an earlier bid to block the 2022 use of the districts. But the explanation, and his defense, is plain: he takes seriously the principle (which lawyers call Purcell) that judges should refrain from interventions relatively late in an election cycle, when remedies such as obligatory remaps would be maximally disruptive.

However it may handle the statutory‐​interpretation side, it’s unlikely that the Court can go on dodging the constitutional logic forever.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
The First Amendment Protects Against Bad‐​Faith Prosecutions
next post
GNG TV: Small But Mighty — “Go” Trend in Russell 2000

You may also like

10 Reasons to Cut Corporate Welfare

March 6, 2025

Friday Feature: Onward Learning

October 11, 2024

Affordable Housing Testimony

May 8, 2025

On “Disagreement” and the Presidential Power to Adjourn...

November 18, 2024

Borders Matter, Even for Purist Free Traders

September 15, 2023

Chileans Vote to Step Back from the Socialist...

May 10, 2023

The Potent Political Effect of Border Chaos and...

July 17, 2024

CFPB Targets Currency Devaluations, Just Not Government-Caused Devaluations

June 3, 2024

Debt, Spending, and Inflation Projected to Increase in...

May 15, 2023

Friday Feature: TwiddleU

May 17, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • ‘Congress must act’: Nonprofit study exposes green energy org’s ties to CCP interests while undermining US

      June 11, 2025
    • GOP congressman takes major step toward gubernatorial announcement

      June 11, 2025
    • DOJ argues Trump may cancel Biden-era national monuments

      June 11, 2025
    • Government’s spending surge to trigger significant tax rises, says leading advisory firm

      June 11, 2025
    • Republican senator teams up with Democrat to push $15 per hour minimum wage plus annual inflation increases

      June 11, 2025
    • House of Lords AI summit at London Tech Week warns of ‘skills cliff edge’ threatening UK’s competitive future

      June 11, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,184)
    • Investing (2,027)
    • Politics (15,595)
    • Stocks (3,141)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved