Latest news with #RickHasen
Politico
08-08-2025
- Politics
- Politico
It's been 60 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed. Will it make it to 61?
ANXIOUS ANNIVERSARY — The Voting Rights Act was signed into law 60 years ago this week. What the law will look like when it reaches its 61st anniversary next year is a big question. The landmark piece of legislation — which helped usher in an era of increased minority representation across American politics — has slowly been chipped away by the Roberts Supreme Court over the last 12 years. And a pair of court battles over the next year could leave the future of the law even more uncertain. These new cases came 'within the Overton window because of what the justices themselves have done to encourage people to think more aggressively as it relates to the Voting Rights Act,' said Wendy Weiser, the vice president for democracy at the liberal advocacy organization the Brennan Center for Justice. 'These are radical changes that would do significant damage to voting rights.' Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act has predominantly come through Section 2 of the law — which broadly prohibits discrimination in election practices on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group — after the Supreme Court in 2013 rendered the other major pillar moot. Back then, the court struck down the part of the VRA that determined which jurisdictions had a history of discrimination and needed to get federal permission before changing their voting laws. Section 2 has been used to challenge voting practices — like restrictive registration requirements — that have disproportionately affected minority voters. But one of the biggest ways Section 2 enforcement has played out in practice has been the creation of 'majority-minority' congressional and legislative districts in which minority voters make up enough of the electorate to elect a candidate of their choosing. There are dozens of such districts across the country that are drawn to explicitly be majority Black, Latino or Asian — a practice the Supreme Court is now scrutinizing. The first case starts in Louisiana, where a majority Black district that sprawled across the state was challenged by a group of self-identified non-Black voters as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The court initially heard arguments appealing that case in March. But earlier this summer, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of announcing it will rehear the case. In a short order issued last week, the justices called for parties to be prepared to argue whether the 'intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.' The question posed by the court does not explicitly mention either the Voting Rights Act or Section 2. But the implication is fairly straightforward, according to UCLA law professor Rick Hasen: The court's conservative jurists could find that the Reconstruction era amendments — which were passed initially to protect newly-freed slaves — demand a 'colorblind' reading of the inherently race-conscious Voting Rights Act, and either strike it down or significantly limit its scope. The court could find that 'the 14th and 15th Amendments should be read not as providing a way for Congress to protect Blacks and other minorities from discrimination in voting and elsewhere, but instead that it's a command that everything be race neutral,' Hasen, who has been critical of the court's erosion of the VRA, told Nightly. 'A kind of race neutral reading of the Constitution would potentially read out Congress's power to enact race conscious remedies to protect minority voters.' Merely asking the question does not guarantee the court will scrap the practice of drawing majority-minority districts — Chief Justice John Roberts, who has generally looked to roll back the VRA over his career, was the surprise author of a majority opinion in 2023 that upheld a key provision. But at least one conservative justice has written recently that the law should be gutted, with Clarence Thomas writing in June that the court's previous rulings have placed 'the VRA in direct conflict with the Constitution.' The VRA has acted as a restraint in this hyper-partisan era of redistricting, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 federal courts couldn't police so-called partisan gerrymandering. A universe without VRA-protected districts would allow mapmakers of all political persuasions to further push the bounds of remapping. Beyond the Louisiana case, another significant challenge to Section 2 is making its way through the federal judiciary. The vast majority of Section 2 litigation has been initiated by private parties, such as individual citizens or civil rights groups. But in a case out of North Dakota, the conservative 8th Circuit ruled that a 'private right of action' does not exist and that only the federal government can bring these cases. That, in effect, would eliminate most of the enforcement of the VRA and leave the remaining trickle up to the whims of whatever administration is in the White House — particularly under the Trump administration, which has totally overhauled the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. That ruling was stayed by the Supreme Court last month as an appeal is crafted. But that was over the objection of three of the conservative justices — Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. The North Dakota case does not present as direct an attack on Section 2 as the one from Louisiana. But a ruling that kills the right for private parties to sue would render the VRA effectively moot, Hasen said. 'While a ruling that private parties couldn't sue wouldn't look like a death knell, when you've got most cases — the lion's share — being brought by private parties, and you have a Trump Department of Justice that has not and does not appear to be interested in bringing any additional Section 2 lawsuits,' he said, 'it would essentially be rendering Section 2 a dead letter.' Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at zmontellaro@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @ZachMontellaro. What'd I Miss? — Billy Long out as IRS commissioner: President Donald Trump plans to remove Billy Long as commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, a White House official said today. Long was sworn in less than two months ago to lead the tax agency. The former Missouri lawmaker had previously sponsored legislation to eradicate the IRS. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will serve as the agency's acting commissioner, the White House official — who was granted anonymity to discuss personnel moves — said. — Trump to consider Fannie and Freddie public offerings this year: President Donald Trump is considering selling stock in mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac later this year, a senior administration official said today. 'The president is weighing all his options,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss plans that have not yet been finalized. The details of a potential public offering, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, would value the two companies at around $500 billion and involve selling 5 percent to 15 percent of their stock. However, there is still debate surrounding whether the entities would go through the initial public offering process separately or together. — U.S. attorney's office subpoenas New York AG Letitia James: The U.S. attorney's office in Albany has issued two subpoenas to New York Attorney General Letitia James stemming from a pair of politically charged civil cases against President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, according to a person familiar with the matter. The subpoenas are an escalation of the Trump administration's scrutiny of James, who has positioned herself as a ferocious opponent of the president. The Department of Justice earlier this year opened a separate investigation into mortgage fraud allegations against James, which she has denied. — Appeals court panel quashes Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings over Alien Enemies Act deportations: A divided federal appeals court panel has thrown out U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's bid to pursue criminal contempt for Trump administration officials he says defied his orders in March by sending 130 Venezuelan men to a prison in El Salvador. The ruling can be appealed further. If it remains in place, it appears to sharply diminish — but not completely rule out — the possibility that lawyers or other officials in the administration could face contempt charges over their conduct during the high-profile deportation showdown. — Trump administration demands $1B from University of California-Los Angeles: The Trump administration is pushing the University of California-Los Angeles to enter a $1 billion settlement that would resolve alleged civil rights violations, restore hundreds of millions of dollars of frozen federal research grants, and force the school to adopt major changes to how it operates. The proposed agreement is certain to be subject to intense negotiations between the University of California and the White House. The administration's opening demand marks a major effort to expand the scope of a monthslong political and policy offensive against higher education institutions — this time against a flagship campus at one of the country's largest public university systems. AROUND THE WORLD LONDON CALLING — Keir Starmer today led international condemnation of Israel over a major military escalation in the Gaza Strip in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to take over Gaza City. Germany suspended arms exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza, Spain 'strongly' condemned the stepped-up Israeli offensive, and the United Nations called for an immediate halt to the Israeli operation. 'The Israeli government's decision to further escalate its offensive in Gaza is wrong, and we urge it to reconsider immediately,' the British prime minister said in a statement early today. 'This action will do nothing to bring an end to this conflict or to help secure the release of the hostages. It will only bring more bloodshed,' he said. Britain and its allies are working on a long-term plan to secure peace in the region as part of a two-state solution, but 'without both sides engaging in good faith in negotiations, that prospect is vanishing before our eyes,' the U.K. leader said. Turkey also lambasted Netanyahu's decision, which was approved by Israel's security cabinet early today. Ankara called on Israel to stop its plans. CIVILIANS OUT — Ukraine is evacuating hundreds of people from Korabel, an island district of Kherson city in southern Ukraine, after Russia last week severely damaged the only bridge connecting the suburb with the rest of the city. 'There are still about 600 people left out of 1,800 who were living there before the strike. At least 200 will be evacuated today. And Russians continue to attack the bridge and the area during evacuation,' Oleksandr Tolokonnikov, deputy head of the Kherson regional administration, said today. The few people left in Korabel have no gas, no electricity, no shops and no public transportation. The bridge attack prompted fears that Russians are planning to retake Kherson. Russia seized the city of 300,000 in the early days of its full-scale attack on Ukraine in 2022, but was driven out later that year. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP HOMEWARD BOUND — Clint Smith's family was one of the first let back into their Gentilly, New Orleans home after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in October 2005. And when he stepped foot back into the neighborhood as a teenager, he saw the extent of the devastation — and also the continued character of the neighborhood. Over the years following, Katrina became more than just a storm for his neighbors — it became a reference point and a 'before/after' moment for those who survived. Twenty years later Smith, now an essayist, reflects on what it meant to return home, and the concept of home after disaster, for The Atlantic. Parting Image Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
Washington Post
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Supreme Court signals it may rule on law protecting power of minority voters
The Supreme Court has signaled that it may rule on the constitutionality of a key section of the landmark Voting Rights Act that allows states to draw majority-minority voting districts mainly to protect the power of Black and Hispanic voters. The justices on Friday evening asked opposing parties in a battle over a Louisiana voting map to submit briefs addressing whether the state's creation of a second Black majority congressional district violated constitutional provisions that require all people to be treated equally. The district covers areas stretching from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. 'The stakes here are enormous,' Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA and an expert on election law, wrote on his blog. Black voters and civil rights groups sued Louisiana in 2022 under the Voting Rights Act, saying the state's then new congressional map diluted their voting power. One of six congressional districts consisted of a majority-minority population in a state where roughly a third of voters are Black. That district covers New Orleans and parts of Baton Rouge. The Voting Rights Act allows states in some circumstances to consider race in drawing districts as a means to redress discriminatory electoral practices, but maps that are explicitly based on race violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. States must carefully thread those competing directives. Federal courts ruled for the plaintiffs in the Louisiana case, and the state redrew the map in 2024, creating the second majority-Black congressional district. A group of self-described 'non-African American' voters then sued, claiming the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause. The case made its way to the Supreme Court last term, but the justices put off a decision to allow for additional briefing. The order issued on Friday clarified the legal issues the court wanted to consider more fully. The court is likely to decide the case during its next term, which begins in October. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which is one of the cornerstones of civil rights era law, prohibits racial discrimination in voting practices. States have long drawn majority-minority districts to meet its provisions and protect minority voters against gerrymandered maps that diminish their power. 'What the Court seems to be asking, without directly saying it, is whether Section 2 of the VRA, at least as to how it has been applied to require the creation of majority-minority districts in some circumstances, violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution,' Hasen wrote. A broad ruling by the court striking down the second Black majority district in Louisiana could pare back the use of race-based redistricting. The case could also affect the balance of power in a closely divided Congress. Currently, the newly created second majority Black district is held by a Democrat. In 2013, a divided Supreme Court invalidated another important part of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain mostly Southern states with a history of discriminatory voting practices to get federal clearance before changing voting rules. The states included Louisiana. In 2023, the high court prohibited Alabama from using a voting map that the justices found unlawfully diminished the power of Black voters.
Time of India
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Operations Management Project Management Technology Management Data Science Finance Data Analytics Design Thinking Public Policy healthcare others MBA Cybersecurity Leadership MCA Degree Digital Marketing PGDM Healthcare CXO Product Management Others Artificial Intelligence Data Science Skills you'll gain: Quality Management & Lean Six Sigma Analytical Tools Supply Chain Management & Strategies Service Operations Management Duration: 10 Months IIM Lucknow IIML Executive Programme in Strategic Operations Management & Supply Chain Analytics Starts on Jan 27, 2024 Get Details The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Live Events Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts , up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
CNN
01-08-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
CNN
01-08-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
