Supreme Court: Voting Rights Act Still Applies

Supreme Court: Voting Rights Act Still Applies
Published: 25 Mar, 2015
2 min read

On Wednesday, the

Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in the consolidated cases of Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, which challenged Alabama’s redistricting as racial gerrymandering.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, and joined by Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan, found that a challenge to Alabama’s redistricting plan based on a district-by-district analysis of racial gerrymandering was valid. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Alabama claimed that its redistricting plan was valid because it apportioned the number of black voters in line with the historical composition in each district, which it argued was required by the Voting Rights Act.

The court disagreed. It held that § 5 of the Voting Rights Act merely requires states to maintain a minority group’s ability to elect a preferred candidate, not maintain strict percentages of minorities within a district. Considering this interpretation of the Act, the court said that there is “strong, perhaps overwhelming, evidence that race did predominate as a factor when the legislature drew the boundaries…”

The dissent, penned by Justice Scalia, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, focused on the procedural inadequacies of the appellants’ case. Scalia did not agree with the majority’s decision to interpret the appellants’ arguments and claims as legally correct when they were “pleaded with such opacity that, squinting hard enough, one can find them to contain just about anything.”

He also agreed with the lower court that the caucus did not have standing because it failed to present any evidence demonstrating it.

Justice Thomas also wrote a dissent, but focused on what he believes to be substantive faults in the court’s reasoning. Thomas believes that this entire case is a debate about the “best racial quota” because of the immense errors present within the jurisprudence of interpreting the Voting Rights Act.

He believes this jurisprudence, along with the Department of Justice’s interference and the state’s “max-black” plans, which created many majority-black districts -- some even over 70 percent black -- have directly led to the present issue in Alabama.

IVP Donate

This victory for minority voters in Alabama is viewed as a small victory, but one that could prevent use of the Voting Rights Act as an excuse to draw district lines in favor of any political party under the pretext of racial equality.

Photo Credit: Gary Blakeley / shutterstock.com

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read