+

Cookies on the Business Insider India website

Business Insider India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we\'ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Insider India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our Privacy Policy.

Close
HomeQuizzoneWhatsappShare Flash Reads
 

Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing, nearly 50-page dissent about why the Supreme Court should have gutted voting rights

Jun 9, 2023, 02:49 IST
Business Insider
Associate US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas poses for the official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022.Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images
  • Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in Thursday's 5-4 ruling on Allen v. Milligan.
  • He wrote a nearly-50-page dissent about his disagreement with the ruling.
Advertisement

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing, 48-page dissent in the court's ruling that Alabama violated a ban on racial gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday, holding a lower federal court's decision that Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act with congressional districts that discriminate against Black voters in the state by largely clumping them together into one district.

The surprise ruling prevented the court from gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both conservatives, joined the Supreme Court's liberal-leaning justices in the ruling.

Thomas was one of four conservative justices who opposed Thursday's ruling.

Advertisement

In his dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote that the court's decision has turned Section 2 — the part of the Voting Rights Act that bans gerrymandering based on race — into "nothing more than a racial entitlement to roughly proportional control of elective offices — limited only by feasibility — wherever different racial groups consistently prefer different candidates."

Thomas said the Voting Rights Act doesn't require Alabama "intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State's population."

"If it did, the Constitution would not permit it," he wrote.

More dramatically, Thomas said he would have ruled that the Voting Rights Act had no power at all to prevent state legislators from racially gerrymandering districts — grouping minority votes along racial lines to dilute their power.

Thomas said he's "long been convinced" that the Voting Rights Act only regulates voters' ability to actually get to the ballot or cast it.

Advertisement

The gerrymandered maps were used in the 2022 election. Republicans won all six non-Black-majority congressional districts. The sole Black-majority district went to Democrats.

Alabama will now need to redraw its electoral maps.

Next Article