How the Supreme Court is changing the South

WASHINGTON —  When conservative justices secured a 6-3 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, many Democrats worried how their decisions would change the country.

And with good reason.

The Republican-appointed justices jettisoned the landmark decision that protected abortion access, curtailed the federal government’s ability to regulate the carbon pollution that contributes to global warming and undermined states’ ability to limit their citizens’ ability to carry weapons.

In a surprising twist, however, the high court this month doled out several rulings that pleased voting rights advocates.

These decisions are likely leading to new electoral maps that will increase representation for Black voters in Congress. Some of the most-affected states—Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia—have drawn districts unfavorable to Black voters for decades, advocates have said.

How might these Supreme Court decisions affect future elections? Who might these new districts elect? Will the rulings further bolster Black political power in the South?

Hello friends, I’m Erin B. Logan. I cover national politics for the Los Angeles Times. This week, we are going to discuss the South, redistricting and voting rights.

The decisions

Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the federal government has played a role in protecting voting in the states. Part of that law requires districts that guarantee that voters of color have a fair shot at electing a representative of their choice. Voting rights advocates contend that many states, including Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia, have drawn their maps in ways that dilute the power of Black voters in order to preserve white majority districts.

For example, only one of Alabama’s seven congressional districts is drawn in a way that will give Black voters an edge in elections, despite the fact that 27% of the state’s population is Black. Earlier this month, however, the Supreme Court required Alabama’s GOP lawmakers to draw a new district that is likely to elect a Black representative to Congress.

The high court on Monday lifted a pause on a lawsuit that challenged Louisiana’s maps on similar grounds. This paves the way for new maps to be drawn that could add a second Black majority district in that state. In Georgia, lawsuits that allege maps dilute Black voters are likely bound by this ruling as well.

The maps

Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, told The Times there is time ahead of the 2024 election for these new districts to be drawn and approved. An affiliate of the nonprofit has, alongside other groups, already submitted a map to Alabama’s legislature suggesting where a new district could be drawn. The two districts would include all historically Black districts. Jenkins said the submission makes “minimal changes” that are needed to be made to meet the requirements.

Alabama is still very racially segregated.

Jenkins said many of her allies were nervous in the run-up to the decision, saying that “if you’re not gonna be able to prove any of these factors in Alabama, you can’t prove them anywhere.”

“This is why this case was, you know, such an important case for the court to affirm the ruling because so many of these factors are so stark in Alabama,” she added.

More Democratic seats?

The ruling does not substantially change the calculus for the New Georgia Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded in 2013 by former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.

The group’s policy director, Stephanie Ali, told The Times that turning out voters will still remain its top priority. But Ali said the ruling will likely influence both Black and Asian voters, who will be able to “see people who represent them more — who look like them, who come from their community.”

Ali said that it’s a fair assumption that this ruling will allow Democrats to gain more seats in the House, where Republicans control the chamber with 222 seats versus 212 for the Democrats.

“That’s the history of how people have voted,” Ali said. Voters, however, tend to have “very nuanced views politically and personally.”

GOP-led efforts to restrict voting turn off voters of color, Ali said.

“If we didn’t have parties wholesale trying to step over rights of diverse communities, then they might actually vote for [non-Democratic candidates],” she said.

The latest from the cable news world

—Appearing on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, a conduit into the bloodstream of former President Trump’s America, California Gov. Gavin Newsom seemed to delight in trolling Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, Times writer Taryn Luna reported.

—Rocked by the loss of its top-rated opinion host Tucker Carlson, Fox News has overhauled its prime-time lineup in an effort to reverse its recent ratings declines, placing Jesse Watters in the coveted 8 p.m. slot, Times writer Stephen Battaglio reported. Watters will remain a co-host on “The Five.”

—Don Lemon has more to say about his unexpected firing from CNN, Times writer Carlos De Loera reported. In his first interview since departing from the news network in April, the former anchor spoke on Saturday with ABC24 Memphis about the current state of journalism and life after CNN.

The view from Washington

—An audio recording from a meeting in which former President Trump discusses a “highly confidential” document with an interviewer appears to undermine his later claim that he didn’t have such documents, only magazine and newspaper clippings, the Associated Press reported.

—President Biden‘s lofty rhetoric last week about democracy in India papered over the reality that in the nation, the hugely popular Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party have advanced policies that discriminate against Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities and limit freedom of speech and the press.

— The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a Republican claim that the Constitution gives state lawmakers full and unchecked power over the elections of members of Congress and the president in their state, Times writer David G. Savage reported. The so-called independent state legislature theory had alarmed Democrats and threatened to inject an element of uncertainty into the 2024 national elections.

—The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it somewhat harder to prosecute online stalkers, ruling the 1st Amendment protects the free speech of those who repeatedly send unwanted and harassing messages as long as they are not intended as threats, Times writer David G. Savage reported.

The view from California

—Gay GOP advisor to Trump Richard Grenell, who has criticized the Equality Act and railed against transgender youth rights, was honored by Republicans on the California Senate floor on Monday during Pride Month, Times writer Mackenzie Mays reported. The recognition of Grenell was protested by some Democrats who quietly walked off the floor during the short ceremony honoring him as “the first openly gay presidential Cabinet member.”

—Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders on Monday agreed to a $310.8-billion budget spending plan that will reduce investments in fighting climate change and reflects a compromise on the governor’s last-minute proposal to speed up infrastructure projects across California, Times writer Taryn Luna reported.

—Lawyers for longtime Los Angeles politician Mark Ridley-Thomas, who was convicted of bribery, fraud and conspiracy, asked a federal judge Monday to set aside the jury’s guilty verdict and order a new trial or acquit their client outright, Times writer Matt Hamilton reported.

Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting. And don’t forget to follow me on Twitter and send pictures of your adorable furbabies to me at [email protected].