Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) on Sunday criticized the Supreme Court for striking down Louisiana's congressional maps, arguing that the ruling undermines voting rights protections and allows lawmakers to choose their voters rather than the reverse.
The high court's decision earlier this week determined that Louisiana's majority Black district was illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The provision prohibits voting practices that create barriers based on race or color and has been used to justify redistricting efforts aimed at protecting minority voting power.
Warnock made his comments during an appearance on CBS News's "Face the Nation."
What the Left Is Saying
Warnock argued that gerrymandering inverts the democratic process by allowing politicians to select their constituents rather than voters choosing representatives. "Gerrymandering turns our elections on its head, so that rather than the people picking their politicians or their public servants, the politicians are picking their voters," he told host Margaret Brennan.
The Georgia Democrat characterized the Supreme Court's ruling as a significant setback for voting rights. "What happened this week is nothing less than a massive and devastating blow, not only to our democracy, but particularly to people of color in the South," Warnock said. He described the decision as "21st Century Jim Crow tactics in new clothes."
Warnock pointed to the court's 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling that weakened Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, saying it created conditions for discriminatory redistricting practices. "We had 100 years after the 15th Amendment was passed, which, on paper, gave Black people the right to vote, but with supposedly or putatively race neutral methods," he said. "For 100 years, the right to vote was denied."
The senator called for legislative action and pointed to his Redistricting Reform Act, which would establish independent redistricting commissions and prohibit mid-decade redistricting as a way to reduce partisan gerrymandering.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservatives have generally supported the Supreme Court's approach to Section 2 cases, arguing that courts should evaluate districting plans based on neutral principles rather than mandating specific racial outcomes. Critics of race-conscious redistricting argue that the Constitution grants states authority over their own election structures.
Some Republican legal scholars contend that requiring majority-minority districts can actually perpetuate racial segregation by encouraging communities to organize along racial lines. They argue for race-neutral redistricting criteria that consider partisan balance without using race as a primary factor.
Other conservative voices have emphasized that courts should not micromanage state legislative decisions on district boundaries, calling the current system of judicial review an overreach into areas traditionally handled at the state level.
What the Numbers Show
The Supreme Court's decision affects Louisiana's 5th congressional district, which had been redrawn to include a majority Black population following the court's prior ruling in Allen v. Milligan in 2023. That earlier decision found that Alabama and Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires states to create districts where minority voters can elect candidates of their choice if a majority of voters support such an arrangement. The provision has been a foundational tool for civil rights advocates since its passage in 1965.
Warnock noted that since the Shelby County ruling weakened pre-clearance requirements for changes to voting laws, racial voter turnout gaps have widened in his assessment.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's decision represents a significant development in how courts will interpret Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act going forward. Legal experts are closely watching to see whether this signals a broader retreat from race-conscious redistricting protections.
Warnock has introduced legislation that would fundamentally change how congressional districts are drawn by requiring independent commissions in each state, though such measures face an uncertain path in Congress.
The debate over redistricting authority is expected to continue as more states undertake map-drawing processes ahead of upcoming elections.