In Louisiana Case, U.S. Supreme Court Weighs ‘Colorblind’ Constitution vs. Race‑Based Voting Rights

Louisiana voting rights colorblind Constitution: The U.S. Supreme Court justices are debating whether the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as colorblind, even when racial discrimination remedies are sought under civil rights legislation, in a significant case that examines the racial makeup of Louisiana’s election districts.

Louisiana voting rights colorblind Constitution

That was the position taken during arguments on Wednesday by a lawyer representing white voters who filed a lawsuit to stop a Louisiana lawmaker-approved electoral map that gave Black voters more statewide voting power after a judge determined that a previous version likely violated a landmark civil rights law by harming Black voters.

The lawsuit concerns whether the Louisiana state legislature violated constitutional safeguards by relying excessively on race when determining the borders of the state’s U.S. House of Representatives districts.

Edward Greim, speaking on behalf of the white plaintiffs, informed the court that “if it was ever acceptable under our colorblind Constitution to do this, it was never intended to continue indefinitely.”

The conservative justices on the court have the opportunity to weaken a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which they seemed prepared to do based on the questions they posed during Wednesday’s arguments.

The white plaintiffs’ and Louisiana Republicans’ challenge to the Voting Rights Act was supported by the administration of Republican President Donald Trump. Trump has prioritized cracking down on diversity, equality, and inclusion initiatives around the country during his second term in office.

The legal doctrine known as constitutional colorblindness holds that the Constitution prohibits the use of race as a determining factor in the laws and policies of the government. However, conservatives have been accused by some liberals of adopting this colorblindness strategy as a front for policies that are really colorblind, favoring white people while disadvantageously affecting minorities.
In a state where Black people make up around one-third of the population, Greim claimed that drawing an electoral plan for Louisiana that included a second congressional district with a Black majority—out of the state’s six districts—violated two constitutional amendments.
Following the American Civil War (1861–1865), which put an end to the widespread practice of slavery in southern states like Louisiana, both of them were ratified.

Equal legal protection is promised under the 14th Amendment. According to the 15th Amendment, a person’s ability to vote cannot be restricted because of their “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” They are known as the Reconstruction Amendments because they were drafted during the post-war Reconstruction period, together with the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery.

“It is both ahistorical and repugnant that the Court may use the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution to bar a remedy that helps minority voters,” Richard Hasen, a law professor who leads UCLA’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, commented on social media after Wednesday’s arguments. By the end of June, a decision should be made.

“ADEQUATE REMEDIES”

The conundrum the court faces in issues involving race in American culture was brought to light by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“The goal, of course, is racial nondiscrimination,” Kavanaugh said during the debate with the senator. “But, at the same time, given history and given Congress’s action, the goal is making sure that there have been sufficient remedies for the history of discrimination in the United States.”

Even in the absence of concrete evidence of discriminatory intent, the conservatives on the court expressed doubt about the legality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting maps that would weaken the influence of minorities.
According to Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola statute School, “the high court appears likely to restrict the power of Section 2 of the VRA in redistricting cases by limiting how much race can be used to remedy violations of that law.”

“It does appear that a number of the conservative members of the court are uncomfortable with the idea that a violation of Section 2 could justify race-based remedies,” Levinson said.

In a 2013 ruling written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, the court struck down yet another important clause in the same statute.

Every ten years, the borders of legislative districts are redrawn in the United States in a process known as redistricting to account for changes in the country’s population as determined by the national census. State legislatures are usually in charge of redistricting.

During the arguments, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor supported the use of race in congressional mapping.
According to Sotomayor, “race is a part of redistricting always” and may be “used to help people.”

For instance, lawmakers might “keep an ethnic community in one district” to guarantee equitable representation, according to Sotomayor.

According to Sotomayor, the philosophical debate among her other justices did not take this fact into consideration. According to Sotomayor, a 2023 case involving Alabama demonstrated that racial discrimination in voting was still present.

“A map that’s been in effect almost the entire history of Alabama,” Sotomayor said, “was put in effect because of discrimination, so it’s going to have a lingering effect.”

ADMISSIONS OF STUDENTS

The court’s 2023 ruling barring racially discriminatory university admissions practices loomed big throughout Wednesday’s arguments. According to the conservatives on the court, affirmative action policies that take into account an applicant’s race are in violation of the equal protection principle.

Roberts noted, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” in that decision.
In a well-known 2007 decision, Roberts said that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

In her argument on Wednesday on behalf of a group of Black voters, Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, stated that the decision in the student admissions case “made clear that it is still constitutional to use race to remedy specific discrimination, which is what we have in the state of Louisiana.”

According to Michael Dimino Sr., a professor at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, the justices may utilize the Louisiana case to update the legal framework for assessing Section 2 without completely rejecting it.
“Either they say Section 2 is unconstitutional, or they are going to interpret Section 2 in a different way,” Dimino said. “Either approach would be very significant for the voting rights field.”