North Carolina has become notorious in recent years for its racial gerrymandering. Now a Supreme Court ruling has confirmed that, yes, it is still wrong to carve up congressional districts with the goal of diluting the voting power of racial minorities.
The Supreme Court found that a pair of congressional districts that had been in effect until 2014 depended too much on race, according to an article by Bloomberg. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority, arguing that the lines for the 1st congressional district and 12th congressional district had been drawn up in order to pack racial minority voters into certain districts and thereby minimize their presence in other ones.
The Supreme Court's rulings upheld that of a three-judge federal court that had previously ruled those two districts were racially drawn, according to a story by ABC News. The court was unanimous in upholding the lower court's ruling about the 1st congressional district, which Kagan described as "a racial gerrymander whose necessity is supported by no evidence," and was split 5-3 on the 12th congressional district.
That last decision was notable because Justice Clarence Thomas, who is traditionally a conservative, joined the four liberal judges in their ruling. Kagan argued that "the evidence offered at trial . . . adequately supports the conclusion that race, not politics, accounted for the district's reconfiguration." In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito claimed that the district's boundaries "are readily explained by political considerations."
Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in these rulings as the arguments occurred prior to his confirmation.
By Matthew Rozsa
Matthew Rozsa is a professional writer whose work has appeared in multiple national media outlets since 2012 and exclusively at Salon since 2016. He received a Master's Degree in History from Rutgers-Newark in 2012, was a guest on Fox Business in 2019, repeatedly warned of Trump's impending refusal to concede during the 2020 election, spoke at the Commonwealth Club of California in 2021, was awarded a science journalism fellowship from the Metcalf Institute in 2022 and appeared on NPR in 2023. His diverse interests are reflected in his interviews including: President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (1999-2001), animal scientist and autism activist Temple Grandin, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (1997-2001), director Jason Reitman ("The Front Runner"), inventor Ernő Rubik, comedian Bill Burr ("F Is for Family"), novelist James Patterson ("The President's Daughter"), epidemiologist Monica Gandhi, theoretical cosmologist Janna Levin, voice actor Rob Paulsen ("Animaniacs"), mRNA vaccine pioneer Katalin Karikó, philosopher of science Vinciane Despret, actor George Takei ("Star Trek"), climatologist Michael E. Mann, World War II historian Joshua Levine (consultant to "Dunkirk"), Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (2013-present), dog cognition researcher Alexandra Horowitz, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson (2012, 2016), comedian and writer Larry Charles ("Seinfeld"), seismologist John Vidale, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman (2000), Ambassador Michael McFaul (2012-2014), economist Richard Wolff, director Kevin Greutert ("Saw VI"), model Liskula Cohen, actor Rodger Bumpass ("SpongeBob Squarepants"), Senator John Hickenlooper (2021-present), Senator Martin Heinrich (2013-present), Egyptologist Richard Parkinson, Rep. Eric Swalwell (2013-present), Fox News host Tucker Carlson, actor R. J. Mitte ("Breaking Bad"), theoretical physicist Avi Loeb, biologist and genomics entrepreneur William Haseltine, comedian David Cross ("Scary Movie 2"), linguistics consultant Paul Frommer ("Avatar"), Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (2007-2015), computer engineer and Internet co-inventor Leonard Kleinrock and right-wing insurrectionist Roger Stone.