Congressional Black Caucus Responds to Voting Right Act Section 2 Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court

By Mary Alice Miller

Louisiana’s population is 30% Black. But, of the six congressional representatives, only one was because of the Black population choosing their own representation.

Two years ago, in Allen v. Milligan the Supreme Court decided that Alabama’s congressional map illegally diluted the voting power of Black residents and violated Section 2. Of the Voting Rights Act. A new congressional map was ultimately drawn in Alabama, which allowed for a second majority-Black district and led to the election of a Black representative.
That victory encouraged other states to challenge districts that limited the opportunity for minorities to elect a representative of their choice.
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 2 itself.

Black voters successfully sued Louisiana under Section 2 to create a second majority-Black district. A different group of voters, calling themselves non-Black, objected, arguing that the second district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

In oral arguments, the Supreme Court seemed to lean towards the second group’s position which would put at risk minority representation across the country.
The Congressional Black Caucus responded in a press conference led by Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“Earlier today, the Supreme Court began oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callus, a case that places section two of the voting rights squarely in the crosshairs of this court’s conservative supermajority. Let me be clear, this case threatens to dismantle one of the last remaining safeguards against racial discrimination in our electoral system. And the stakes could not be higher,” said Clarke.

“We are standing on the precipice of what could be a substantial blow to one of the most important civil rights laws in our nation’s history,” Clarke continued. “Combined with Republicans mid-decade gerrymandering, a ruling gutting section two could help them secure an additional 27 safe Republican United States House seats. at least 19 directly tied to the loss of section two.”

Clarke declared, “A ruling of this magnitude would have wide ranging implications on Black and minority representation in the Congress. The opponents of Louisiana’s new map and the state itself are seeking to twist this case into a weapon that could gut the ability to challenge racially discriminatory maps nationwide.”

This is an affront to every community that has fought, marched, and bled for the right to vote. The late Congressman John Lewis said, ‘The right to vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy. Right now, that tool is under threat. Fair representation is under threat. This is not just a legal fight. This is a fight for the future of our democracy.

The Congressional Black Caucus stands united. We will protect the sacred right to vote, and we will defend the promise of democracy for every American.”
Clarke introduced Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter, first vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
“Today the Supreme Court again heard oral arguments in Louisiana v Callais, a case that could dismantle what remains of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At stake is whether one-third of Louisiana’s population, my home state, black Louisianians, will continue to have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice or whether hard-won progress will be erased under the guise of so-called color-blind politics.

“Critics claim that the VRA is no longer needed, but history and data tell quite a different story. Louisiana’s color-blind poll taxes, literacy test and Jim Crow jury laws were tools of exclusion.

Further, through black people, those black people make up one-third of the population. Without protections like section two, Black communities will lose power, their concerns are sidelined, and our democracy is weakened,” said Carter.

“Section two is not a relic. It’s as needed today as it was in 1965. Some might even argue that it’s more needed because we see the attempts under this project 2025 to reverse the actions of gain to take away the freedoms and the rights of Americans,” Carter said.

Representative Terry Sewell from Alabama’s seventh district which includes Birmingham and Tuscaloosa and Camden and Marian and her hometown of Selma, Alabama is also the lead sponsor of the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the House of Representatives.

“I want to thank the CBC and our illustrious chair for her leadership at this moment. We are 62 strong and we are only 62 strong because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We must do everything in our power to make sure that it is not stripped and ripped from the pages of our Constitution and our laws,” said Sewell.
“For the past decade, extremists at every level have waged a concerted effort to make it harder for certain Americans to vote.

They’ve passed hundreds of new laws restricting access to the ballot box. They’ve gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and now they are back in the Supreme Court trying to legalize discrimination against black and minority voters. The stakes couldn’t be higher,” she said.

“For decades, Section two of the Voting Rights Act has served as a critical tool to fight back against discrimination and to ensure that minority communities are fairly represented. For so many of us here

Today, section two is why we stand before you as members of the Congressional Black Caucus. If this court strikes down these critical provisions, it would not only reverse decades of precedent, but it would also take us back to a dark time in our nation’s history, a time when discrimination against minority voters went unchecked,” said Sewell.

“We in Alabama are no strangers to this fight. Just two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the protections of the Voting Rights Act when it ruled that the state of Alabama intentionally discriminated against Black voters. That was a major victory for fair representation. It was an
acknowledgment that the Voting Rights Act is alive and well.

The Voting Rights Act gave us a tool by which we could show the effects of voter discrimination,” Sewell said.
“This case is more than just about congressional maps,” Sewell concluded. “It’s about who we are as a nation and what we want our democracy to be. But if states can pick and choose which voters to silence, none of us are safe.”