US Supreme Court Won’t Intervene in Key Voting Rights Act Challenge

United States Supreme Court Justices pose for their official portrait in Washington on Oct. 7, 2022. Alex Wong/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 12 declined to intervene in a Voting Rights Act-related ruling issued by a lower court that had invalidated a Republican-drawn commissioners map in a Texas county.

However, the high court’s order means that the Galveston County Commissioners Court map that was drafted by Republicans can remain intact.

It came after a federal judge ruled that the map had violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and ordered Galveston County to draw a new one.

The order was left unsigned, although two liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson—joined a dissent written by liberal Justice Elena Kagan.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled that newly drawn county election districts in Galveston illegally weaken the voting power of black and Latino residents and must be redone.

Judge Brown ruled that Galveston County leaders redrew local political districts in a way that violated the federal Voting Rights Act. Black and Latino residents make up about 38 percent of the county’s eligible voters, many of whom lived in a precinct that was dismantled by the new maps.

“This is not a typical redistricting case. What happened here was stark and jarring,” he wrote.

The Biden Department of Justice also joined in the lawsuit, which was filed by black Democratic voters in the county, underscoring the opposition to the maps that Galveston County redrew in 2021.

The challenge and ruling only applied to the local county precincts and not legislative or congressional districts.

The high court’s not taking the case means that the county can use the map for the 2024 election because the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this past week placed a pause on the lower district court’s ruling.

It had agreed to take up the case in May, which is well after the Texas primary contest in March.

An attorney for the Republican commissioners argued that voters and activist groups cannot bring the lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“Such claims are unsupported by Section 2 and necessarily subordinate one minority group’s voice to that of another’s, risking loss of each group’s unique identity in support of a larger political goal—a problem identified by the Fifth Circuit panel in their recently vacated opinion,” Joseph Russo Jr., an attorney for the commissioners, wrote in a court filing.

Dissenting Justices

In her dissent written on Dec. 12, Justice Kagan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote that she would agree to take up the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also an Obama appointee, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, joined in the dissent.

“In imposing a different map, acknowledged to violate current law—on the theory that the circuit might someday change that law—the court of appeals went far beyond its proper authority,” Justice Kagan wrote.

She argued that the 5th U.S. Appeals Court disrupted the status quo by placing a hold on the map.

“The Fifth Circuit’s stay itself disrupted the status quo—an election map concededly lawful under circuit precedent and nearly identical to the maps that have governed the election of Galveston County’s commissioners for decades,” the justice wrote.

What It Means

How local political districts are drawn has come under increasing attention nationwide.

In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier this year vetoed legislation that would have required dozens of the state’s largest cities, counties, and educational districts to use independent commissions to draw voting districts.

Mr. Newsom said he was concerned that a mandate to create independent commissions could end up costing the state tens of millions of dollars.

“Even though this case is only about a local district map in Galveston, it has much broader implications,” Steve Vladeck, a University of Texas School of Law professor, told CNN on Dec. 12.

“The [5th] court of appeals justified letting the unlawful map stay in place in a way that will make it much harder, going forward, for plaintiffs in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas to persuade any federal judge to block an unlawful map except in very short windows after elections take place,” he continued.

In Florida, a congressional map that critics said weakened black voters has been repeatedly challenged. In September, a circuit judge ruled that the map, which was approved by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), should be thrown out—but an appellate court struck down the judge’s ruling earlier this month.

In June, the Supreme Court ordered Alabama to redraw its congressional districts, finding that the state concentrated black voters in one district while spreading them out among others to make it much more difficult to elect more than one candidate of their choice.

Alabama Republican Party Chairman John Wahl said that state lawmakers would comply with the ruling.

“Regardless of our disagreement with the Court’s decision, we are confident the Alabama Legislature will redraw district lines that ensure the people of Alabama are represented by members who share their beliefs while following the requirements of applicable law,” he said in a statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.