Justice Kavanaugh’s Influence Could Lead Supreme Court to Tighten Voting Rights Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to further restrict voting rights, influenced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s controversial views on race-related legal remedies. During a recent hearing in Washington, Kavanaugh questioned the duration for which race-based remedies could be considered, a significant point when discussing the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Kavanaugh’s Influence on Voting Rights

Kavanaugh’s line of questioning reflects a broader trend within the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. The court is being asked to determine whether Louisiana’s congressional map violates constitutional amendments designed to ensure equal protection and prevent racial discrimination in voting. This inquiry relates specifically to the landmark amendments: the 14th and the 15th.

Key Legal Questions

At the heart of the case is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This section prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices. Janai Nelson, representing the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argued that there should be no expiration on the use of race-based remedies. She emphasized that Section 2 does not consistently require such remedies.

• Context: The Louisiana case emerges after the Supreme Court significantly weakened another provision of the VRA in 2013.
• Implications: If the court rules in favor of Louisiana, the consequences could reshape electoral dynamics across the nation.
• Current Case: The legal focal point is whether a second majority-minority congressional district is necessary under current law.

The Court’s Stance on Racial Considerations

During the hearing, Kavanaugh expressed an unsettling preference for a “colorblind” Constitution. This viewpoint aligns with earlier decisions from the Roberts Court, including a notable ruling in 2023 that weakened affirmative action. Kavanaugh has previously hinted at limiting race-based redistricting in his 2023 Alabama case, stating such authority cannot extend indefinitely.

Responses from Advocates

Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the significance of Section 2 lawsuits, which address current voting conditions. She asserted that valid evidence of vote dilution should allow for race-based remedies. In contrast, Louisiana’s legal representative, Benjamin Aguiñaga, affirmed Kagan’s understanding, suggesting potential changes to existing precedents.

Expert opinions warn that limiting Section 2 could have devastating effects on minorities’ voting rights. Nelson cautioned that undermining this law would turn the 15th Amendment into what she described as merely a “parchment promise.”

The forthcoming decision by the Supreme Court will be crucial in determining how race-based considerations are treated in voting rights cases and what that means for the future of American electoral politics.