The Supreme Court agreed Monday to throw out racial gerrymandering in Louisiana’s congressional districts, triggering a war of words among justices.
The court ruled last week that districts drawn to enhance the power of black voters under the auspices of the 1965 Voting Rights Act are no longer legitimate, as noted byNBC News.
That means Louisiana, which has six congressional seats, will redraw lines that currently protect two majority-black districts. That process is likely to reduce the number of Democratic seats in Louisiana from two to one.
The ruling caused a procedural train wreck, because until the court issues its final order on the decision, that process cannot start. As it is, Louisiana’s primary elections are on hold until new maps are drawn.
That led the state to ask that a longstanding rule allowing a 32-day period between the decision and the order enforcing it to be waived so the state can continue with its elections.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a fiery dissent, saying “principles give way to power” and trashing her colleagues for allowing the ruling to take effect.
Justice Samuel Alito, stung by Jackson’s attacks on those who hold different opinions from hers, filed a response supporting the order to allow the ruling to take effect immediately.
In theresponseto Brown’s dissent, Alito wrote, “The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.”
“The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map,” Alito wrote.
“Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting,” he added.
Source: VidNews » Feed
