
WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch Race, Gerrymandering and the Constitution at the Supreme Court
12 snips
Oct 15, 2025 Alicia Finley, an insightful opinion columnist specializing in voting-rights law, joins Barton Swaim, a sharp political analyst, for a deep dive into the complexities of racial gerrymandering. They tackle the Supreme Court's pivotal Louisiana case that questions the necessity of majority-minority districts. Key topics include the implications for political polarization, potential Republican gains in future elections, and the challenges of the Gingles precedent. Their discussion raises vital questions about the future of redistricting and representation in American politics.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Gingles Shifted Power To Judges
- The Gingles precedent forced courts to require majority-minority districts based on vague tests like compactness and political cohesion.
- That framework put legislatures between violating equal protection and risking Section 2 lawsuits, producing inconsistent lower-court outcomes.
Alabama Case Illustrates The Conflict
- In Alabama a 5-4 decision forced the state to consider drawing a second majority-minority district under Gingles.
- Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence suggesting limits and advocating race-neutral standards going forward.
Court Likely To Limit Race-Based Remedies
- Justice Kavanaugh and other conservatives favor time-limited race-based remedies and want race-neutral standards going forward.
- The likely outcome is a conservative majority trimming judicial oversight of race-conscious mapmaking.
