Opinionpalooza: Justice Alito Flies the Flag for Racial Gerrymanders (Preview)
May 23, 2024
auto_awesome
Legal experts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision on racial gerrymandering, focusing on Justice Alito's opinion and its implications on voting rights. They highlight the closing of doors for plaintiffs seeking justice and democracy through racist maps. The episode explores how the Supreme Court's decisions may impact the future of diverse democracy.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP limits federal courts' ability to address racial gerrymandering claims.
The decision highlights the implications of using political excuses to perpetuate racist maps and hinder democracy.
Deep dives
Supreme Court's Decision on Racial Gerrymandering
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, with a six to three conservative majority, has significant implications for voting rights. The ruling, led by Justice Alito, overturned a lower court's finding that South Carolina's congressional map was a racial gerrymander, asserting that race was not the predominant factor in the new maps. This outcome has troubling implications for future racial gerrymandering claims and represents a setback for voting rights advocates.
Redistricting in South Carolina and Voting Rights
The case in South Carolina involved redistricting efforts aimed at maintaining a Republican stronghold by reshuffling black voters from a competitive district to a heavily Democratic one. Voting rights advocates challenged this move, arguing that it violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by using race as a primary factor in redistricting. Despite evidence indicating racial bias, the US Supreme Court's decision upheld the redistricting map, signaling a broader acceptance of racial gerrymandering and potentially limiting federal courts' ability to address such claims.
1.
Exploring Supreme Court Opinions and Impactful Ruling on Racial Gerrymandering
In this Opinionpalooza emergency bonus episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss Thursday’s decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, highlighting the implications for racial gerrymandering and voting rights. They delve into Justice Alito's majority opinion, Justice Kagan's dissent, and Justice Thomas's concurrence. This decision would seem to effectively close the door permanently on racial gerrymander claims in federal courts. Dahlia and Mark discuss how this decision makes justice - and democracy - inaccessible for plaintiffs already shut out of the political system through racist maps with political excuses. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and now seems intent on hollowing out equal protection and diluting the reconstruction amendments; the constitutional provisions central to building a thriving diverse democracy.
This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.