Supreme Court Ruling Benefits Democrats

( – Refusing to let the state redraw its own maps, the U.S. Supreme Court just benefited Democrats by using a map that includes a second predominantly Black district in Louisiana.

The highest court in the land mandated that the state conduct its 2024 congressional elections using a map that a lower court labeled an illegal racial gerrymander.

By establishing two out of Louisiana’s six congressional districts as majority Black, the Supreme Court directive could potentially enhance the Democratic Party’s prospects of winning additional seats in the tightly contested House of Representatives.

The ruling came in response to urgent appeals from both the state’s leading Republican figures and Black voters who make up a third of the state’s population.

They argued that the Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to prevent electoral confusion as the voting season nears.

In states like Louisiana, districts with a majority of Black voters are likely to lean Democratic. This is significant in a political landscape where Republicans hold a slight majority in the House and each seat’s control is fiercely contested.

This order is the latest twist in an extended legal battle concerning Louisiana’s congressional districts after the state was forced to create a new majority-Black district when a federal judge ruled that the previous map violated the Voting Rights Act.

Although a new map was approved, it was challenged by non-white voters who argued that the map’s design excessively considered racial factors. Lower courts concurred that the map was flawed and should not be used in this year’s elections.

However, the Supreme Court’s latest order allows the disputed map to be used for the upcoming election, which leaves its future use uncertain.

Of the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—only Jackson offered an explanation for her dissent.

She argued that implementing a new map this far ahead of the November election posed little risk of confusing voters.

She noted that the court has previously denied stays on redistricting orders issued closer to an election date.

Justice Jackson criticized what is known as the Purcell principle, which advises against judicial intervention in elections close to the election day—a principle she feels is too often used to favor Republican interests.

Copyright 2024,