On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alabama
Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama.
The ruling in these consolidated cases reversed a lower court’s decision that Alabama’s
legislature had not engaged in racial gerrymandering when it redrew electoral
districts in 2012. The Supreme Court also found that
there was strong and “possibly overwhelming,” evidence that race was the
primary motivation in establishing the boundaries of some of some of the
districts. This decision makes it harder for
Republican-dominated legislatures to use compliance with Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act as a pretext to secure partisan advantage.
The cases were brought by a group of white Democrats and black
legislators. They contended that Alabama's Republican-dominated legislature
redrew the state's electoral districts in ways that diluted the voting strength
of racial minorities by packing them into districts that were already heavily
populated by minorities.
The 2010 census showed that populations of several majority
black districts in Alabama shrank significantly. To achieve an equal
distribution of the population, the districts had to be redrawn to incorporate
more residents. The Republican majority redrew the state’s voting districts in
2012. The legislators added large numbers of African Americans to districts
that were already heavily populated with minorities. This made other districts
much whiter and more likely to elect Republican candidates. The legislators
also drew district lines in ways that minimized the influence of African
American voters in districts where they were the minority.
The challengers argued that the legislature engaged in “packing,”
a tactic that dilutes minority voting strength by putting as many minority
voters into as few districts as possible to minimize the number of representatives
they could elect. They also alleged “cracking,” which dilutes minority voting
strength by spreading minority communities across several election districts.
Republican lawmakers argued that because many districts had
lost residents, cases interpreting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required
the state to maintain the same number of majority-minority districts with
roughly the same percentage of minority voters. Democratic and African-American
lawmakers argued that the Section 5 rationale was a pretext for racial gerrymandering.
The District Court held
that racial criteria had not predominated when Alabama’s electoral districts
were redrawn. In doing so, it considered the entire State as an
“undifferentiated whole.” The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling. It
held that a racial gerrymandering claim requires an examination of individual
voting districts using a district-by-district analysis. The trial court’s
consideration of the entire state as a unit of measure was legally erroneous.
The Court also found that Alabama erroneously believed
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required the legislature to pack more
African-American voters into districts to keep the same percentage of African
Americans in each majority-minority district. The Court also rejected arguments
that racial gerrymandering cannot occur when a state’s goal is maintaining
equally populated districts.
The trial court found that even if Alabama subordinated
traditional districting principles to racial considerations, the racial
gerrymandering claims failed because the redistricting would satisfy strict
scrutiny.[2]
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling. The proper approach would be a
determination of the extent to which existing minority percentages had to be preserved
to maintain the minority voters’ ability to elect the candidate of their
choice. However, the Court
left open the question whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act’s
retrogression prohibitions could be deemed a “compelling” state interest that
would satisfy strict scrutiny.
The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s finding that
plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims. At minimum, the plaintiffs
should have been allowed to produce evidence that they had suffered an injury
traceable to the actions of the defendants. The case was
remanded to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme
Court’s findings and analysis.
The decision in Alabama
Democratic Conference is a victory for voting rights. Packing minority and other Democratic voters into fewer
districts is a tactic that Republican-dominated legislatures have used to gain electoral
advantages. The Supreme Court’s ruling prevents states from using retrogression
avoidance as a pretext for racial gerrymandering. However, the battle is far
from over. Other gerrymandering cases are pending and voter suppression tactics
are being aggressively pursued by state legislatures.
[1] Leland Ware, Louis L. Redding
Professor of Law & Public Policy, University of Delaware
[2]
Laws that classify on the basis of race must satisfy the strict scrutiny
standard. Under this exacting test, a legislature must have enacted a law
to advance a "compelling governmental interest" and the law must
be “narrowly tailored” achieving that interest. The test was used to strike
down segregation laws in the 1960s.
No comments:
Post a Comment