The New York Times editorial board tore into the Supreme Court's decision limiting the use of the Voting Rights Act to challenge racial gerrymanders on Wednesday, calling it "a mind-boggling piece of judicial overreach."
"Six conservative justices voted to weaken the act, in that way substituting their own judgment for that of Congress, which reauthorized the law 20 years ago with overwhelming bipartisan support, including a unanimous vote in the Senate," wrote the board. "With this ruling, the court has acted more like partisan legislators than like impartial judges."
The justices stopped short of outright overturning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — but laid out new, stricter, and contradictory requirements for applying it that could give right-wing legislators greater power to carve up Black communities and deny them representation.
"The ruling, in Louisiana v. Callais, makes it easier for states to draw districts for Congress, state legislatures and local councils that elect the candidates favored by white voting blocs. The officials who make the maps no longer need to worry much about whether they are sprinkling Black voters across many districts and eliminating majority Black districts," wrote the board. "The reality is that in the name of disentangling race from politics, the Supreme Court has given white voters more power at the expense of racial minorities."
Moreover, wrote the board, "It is impossible not to notice the partisan nature of the ruling. The six justices in the majority are the six nominated by Republican presidents, and they have likely made it easier for the party that chose them to hold power in Congress. Wednesday’s decision may shift nine seats in Southern states from Democratic to Republican hands, some in the 2026 cycle and more in years to come. State legislatures and local bodies will surely tilt in the same direction."
Ultimately, the board concluded, "The Supreme Court has used dubious reasoning to issue a ruling that will likely help the Republican Party and increase the number of white members of Congress and state legislatures. That ruling will lead to even more suspicion that the court prioritizes partisanship over principle."
