Prof. Crayton discusses case that will shape future of Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court is taking up a case this fall that could have major implications for African-American voters. The Court’s decision will affect the status of majority-black election districts, which frequently exist to protect the political rights of these communities.
In his lecture at the Research Assistants’ luncheon on July 29, Professor Kareem Crayton discussed highlights from his research on this issue.
The upcoming case, Bartlett v. Strickland, involves Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The federal law guarantees to all voters an equal opportunity to participate in elections and prohibits abridgement of the right to vote based on race. In the context of redistricting, the law prevents unfair line drawing that artificially concentrates or disperses communities of non-white voters.
“Section 2 is usually used as a sword by minority groups that say to the courts ‘We haven’t been treated fairly by a state or local government in the redistricting process,’” said Crayton (right).
In the 1986 case of Thornburg v. Gingles, the Supreme Court established guidelines for lawsuits alleging Section 2 violations. In particular, the justices pointed out that plaintiffs have to show that they are large enough to control an election district.
While drawing election districts with a majority of black voters has been the usual remedy for Section 2 violations, the present case involves a district with a smaller black population percentage.
In North Carolina, Pender County was originally split to draw District 18, which the state constitution only permits if required by federal statute. Therefore, the Court must consider whether Section 2 mandates the formation of District 18 to maintain equitable voting practices. Blacks were less than half of the district’s population, but they joined a small group of whites to elect a political candidate heavily preferred by the black community.
Crayton said he is less concerned with the specific answer in the case than with the precise language that the justices adopt in their opinions in discussing Section 2.
“If the Court takes an all-or-nothing approach to what Section 2 allows, the decision could greatly diminish the effectiveness of the law in other states,” Crayton said.
There is evidence to suggest that candidates elected from majority districts are able to engage in coalition-building successfully in later elections. In the Congressional Black Caucus, for example, more and more members have been elected from coalition districts. Coalition districts do not have one clear racial majority group, so groups with different backgrounds join together to elect a candidate.
On the other hand, incumbents enjoy important advantages that are not available in all districts. Majority-black districts therefore remain crucial protections for promoting fair representation in open-seat contests.
“It’s not so easy to prefer coalition districts if they only come at the expense of majority districts,” Crayton said.
This analysis could prove relevant to the decision the Supreme Court makes on this case based on their interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In order to promote the likelihood that the protection of political representation is upheld, the Supreme Court’s decision should “leave room to allow majority districts to be created under some circumstances,” Crayton said.
Previous Article
