2026-04-29T10:20:00-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-voting-rights-act/
华盛顿讯—— 美国最高法院周三否决了路易斯安那州包含两个非裔占多数选区的国会选区地图，这一重大裁决为共和党带来重大胜利，同时大幅削弱了具有里程碑意义的《选举权法案》。
最高法院维持了下级法院的裁决，该裁决认定路易斯安那州的地图绘制者在重新划分该州选区边界以符合《选举权法案》第2条时，过度依赖种族因素。在由大法官塞缪尔·阿利托撰写的6票对3票的裁决中，最高法院的保守派多数意见认为，遵守第2条不能成为该州在重新划分众议院选区时使用种族因素的理由。
大法官埃琳娜·卡根从法庭宣读了异议摘要。
“由于《选举权法案》并未要求路易斯安那州增设一个少数族裔占多数的选区，因此该州在制定SB8号法案（即该选区地图）时使用种族因素，不存在任何迫不得已的利益为其辩护，”阿利托写道。“该地图属于违宪的党派分赃式选区划分，其使用将侵犯原告的宪法权利。”
这一裁决的影响远超路易斯安那州的政治代表权范围。《选举权法案》的保护措施一直是少数族裔选民质疑他们认为存在种族歧视的重划选区计划的关键依据。该裁决很可能会增加少数族裔选民和选举权维权团体依据第2条成功挑战选区地图的难度。
裁决与卡根的异议意见
最高法院的保守派多数修改了法院在评估依据该选举权法提出的诉求时所采用的法律框架，提高了原告成功挑战选区地图所需达到的标准。阿利托表示，这一“更新后的”标准“反映了自40年前最高法院首次采用该标准以来的重要发展”。
“简言之，只有当证据有力表明州政府故意划分选区，从而基于种族剥夺少数族裔选民的选举机会时，第2条才会追究责任，”他写道。“这一解释不仅符合第2条的字面文本，也与第十五修正案赋予的有限权力相一致。”
卡根与大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊一同在异议意见中指出，多数意见“彻底摧毁”了第2条。她警告称，最高法院的这一裁决将使该法律“几乎成为一纸空文”。
“根据最高法院对第2条的新解读，州政府可以系统性地削弱少数族裔公民的投票权，而不会承担任何法律后果，”她写道。
卡根警告称，这一裁决将导致路易斯安那州和其他州的少数族裔选民失去平等选举他们支持的候选人的机会，进而导致少数族裔代表席位大幅减少。
“我持异议，因为最高法院背弃了忠实执行国会制定的这项伟大法案的职责，”她说。“我持异议，因为最高法院的裁决将回溯国会为选举机会中的种族平等所确立的基本权利。”
该裁决距11月的中期选举仅数月之遥。候选人已在路易斯安那州的六个国会选区登记参选，但州共和党人试图在最后时刻重新划分选区地图的时间似乎已经耗尽。政党初选定于5月16日举行，提前投票将于周六开始。
尽管如此，该裁决可能会给全国范围内的共和党人带来利好，他们在一些州为了遵守《选举权法案》，不得不设立少数族裔占多数的选区。最高法院面前的问题是，基于种族的重划选区是否违反了宪法第十四和第十五修正案。
路易斯安那州的地图在2024年选举周期中也被使用，该地图包含四个白人占多数的选区和两个非裔占多数的选区。该地图曾被一个由三名法官组成的地区法院合议庭裁定为违宪的种族分赃式选区划分而无效。
白宫对最高法院的裁决表示欢迎，称这是选民的“全面彻底胜利”。
“一个人的肤色不应决定他属于哪个国会选区，”白宫发言人阿比盖尔·杰克逊在一份声明中表示。“我们赞扬最高法院结束了对《选举权法案》的违宪滥用，保护了公民权利。”
为捍卫包含两个少数族裔占多数选区的路易斯安那州地图的一组原告提供代理的全国有色人种协进会表示，该裁决应激励选民在中期选举中投票，以保护少数族裔代表权。
“今天的裁决对《选举权法案》残余的保护措施而言是毁灭性的打击，也为那些企图通过压制整个社区的声音来操纵选举体系的腐败政客提供了通行证，”全国有色人种协进会主席德里克·约翰逊在一份声明中表示。“最高法院背叛了非裔选民，背叛了美国，背叛了我们的民主。这一裁决是我国的重大挫折，威胁着我们为之奋斗、流血乃至牺牲所换来的来之不易的胜利。”
最高法院的这一裁决与2013年和2021年的近期裁决一脉相承，当时保守派大法官们一直在削弱《选举权法案》。选举权维权团体曾警告称，路易斯安那州案件的裁决可能会影响即将到来的中期选举，导致一些初选时间较晚的州迅速重新划分国会选区，最终导致国会中的少数族裔代表席位减少。
目前尚不清楚某些州的共和党人是否会在最后时刻尝试重新划分国会选区的投票边界。包括得克萨斯州、加利福尼亚州、北卡罗来纳州、弗吉尼亚州和密苏里州在内的多个地区的议员已经在进行中期重划选区，尽管这带有政治动机。
路易斯安那州的选区地图
围绕路易斯安那州国会选区地图的长期法律纠纷始于2022年，当时州共和党议员在2020年人口普查后通过了新的众议院选区划分方案。该方案包含五个白人占多数的选区和一个非裔占多数的选区。根据人口普查数据，近三分之一的路易斯安那州人口为非裔。
一群非裔选民提起诉讼，称该地图违反了第2条，因为它削弱了非裔的投票力量，剥夺了少数族裔选民选举他们支持的候选人的机会。巴吞鲁日的一名联邦法官支持选民的诉求，并下令该州制定包含第二个少数族裔占多数的众议院选区的补救方案。
路易斯安那州议会于2024年通过了重新划分后的方案，对该州第六国会选区进行了调整，以确保该地图符合《选举权法案》的要求。该州的共和党人表示，他们制定该地图还有一个政治目标：保护众议院中强大的共和党现任议员，即议长迈克·约翰逊、多数党领袖史蒂夫·斯卡利斯和拨款委员会成员朱莉娅·莱特洛众议员。
非裔民主党众议员克利奥·菲尔兹于2024年11月当选路易斯安那州第六国会选区议员。
但新的地图也遭到了12名自称“非非裔美国人”的选民的挑战，他们认为这是一种违宪的种族分赃式选区划分。一个由三名法官组成的意见分歧的合议庭裁定新的选区划分方案无效，并认定州议会在制定该方案时过度依赖种族因素。
路易斯安那州共和党人和非裔选民在上一届任期内向最高法院提起上诉，敦促大法官们保留重新划分后的地图。但最高法院将该案安排在6月进行重新辩论，并要求各方就基于种族的重划选区是否符合宪法这一问题发表意见。
去年该案提交最高法院审理时，路易斯安那州官员为新的选区边界辩护，并敦促最高法院保留该方案。但在最高法院表示将审议基于种族的重划选区的合法性后，该州改变了立场，表示其故意设立少数族裔占多数选区的行为违反了宪法。
对法院裁决的反应
最高法院的裁决迅速引发了大致按党派路线划分的反应，民主党人谴责该裁决，而共和党人则拍手称快。
路易斯安那州总检察长莉兹·默里尔是共和党人，她表示最高法院的裁决证实了该州的立场。她说，她将与州长和州议会合作，就符合宪法的选区地图提供指导。
“最高法院结束了路易斯安那州长期以来的噩梦，即联邦法院强迫该州绘制一幅具有种族歧视性的地图，”她在一份声明中说。“这一直是违宪的——而这一具有里程碑意义的裁决重申了我国法律之下的平等保护。”
领导全国共和党国会委员会的共和党众议员理查德·哈德森对该裁决表示赞赏。该委员会的任务是捍卫共和党在众议院的多数席位。
“最高法院明确表示，我们的选举应由选民决定，而非通过违宪的命令来操纵，”他在一份声明中说。“长期以来，活动人士一直在操纵重划选区的进程以实现政治目的，分裂美国人而非将他们团结在一起。这一裁决恢复了公平，增强了人们对选举的信心，并确保每位选民在法律面前受到平等对待。”
民主党全国委员会主席肯·马丁严厉批评了该裁决，称其为“一记重拳”。
“今天对美国来说是黑暗的一天——最高法院刚刚逆转了民权运动的时间轴，”他在一份声明中说。“被共和党掌控的最高法院刚刚实际上废除了《选举权法案》第2条，这是在为种族正义和公平代表权而进行的斗争中迈出的重大倒退。”
Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act in major redistricting case, voiding Louisiana’s congressional map
2026-04-29T10:20:00-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-voting-rights-act/
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts, delivering a significant victory for Republicans in a major decision that narrows the landmark Voting Rights Act.
The high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Louisiana mapmakers relied too heavily on race when they redrew the state’s voting boundaries to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found that compliance with Section 2 could not justify the state’s use of race in redrawing its House district lines.
Justice Elena Kagan read a summary of her dissent from the bench.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the state’s use of race in creating SB8,” Alito wrote, referring to the map. “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
The decision has implications far beyond political representation in Louisiana. The Voting Rights Act’s protections have been key for voters seeking to challenge redistricting plans that they argue are racially discriminatory. The ruling will likely make it more difficult for minority voters and voting rights groups to successfully challenge voting maps under Section 2.
The decision and Kagan’s dissent
The high court’s conservative majority altered the legal framework courts use when evaluating claims brought under the voting rights law, raising the bar plaintiffs must meet to successfully challenge voting maps under Section 2. The “updated” standard, Alito said, “reflects important developments” since it was first adopted by the Supreme Court 40 years ago.
“In short, Section 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race,” he wrote. “Not only does this interpretation follow from the plain text of Section 2, but it is consistent with the limited authority that the Fifteenth Amendment confers.”
Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in her dissent that the majority “eviscerates” Section 2. She warned that as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the law is “all but dead-letter.”
“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” she wrote.
Kagan warned that as a result of the ruling, minority voters in Louisiana and other states will lose the equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, leading to a sharp decline in minority representation.
“I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote,” she said. “I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”
The decision comes just months ahead of the November midterm elections. Candidates have already filed to run across Louisiana’s six congressional districts, but the time for state Republicans to mount a late attempt to redraw the map appears to have run out. Party primary elections are set for May 16, with early voting beginning Saturday.
Still, the decision could be a boon for Republicans across the country, who have had to craft majority-minority districts in some states in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The question before the court was whether race-based redistricting violates the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.
Louisiana’s map, which was also used in the 2024 election cycle, includes four majority-White districts and two majority-Black districts. It had been invalidated by a three-judge district court panel as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The White House cheered the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a “complete and total victory” for voters.
“The color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement. “We commend the court for putting an end to the unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act and protecting civil rights.”
The NAACP, which represented a group of plaintiffs that defended Louisiana’s map with two majority-minority districts, said the ruling should motivate voters to turn out for the midterm elections to protect minority representation.
“Today’s decision is a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act, and a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement. “The Supreme Court betrayed Black voters, they betrayed America, and they betrayed our democracy. This ruling is a major setback for our nation and threatens to erode the hard-won victories we’ve fought, bled, and died for.”
The ruling from the Supreme Court joins recent decisions from 2013 and 2021 in which the conservative justices have chipped away at the Voting Rights Act. Voting rights groups had warned that the ruling in the Louisiana case could impact the upcoming midterm elections by leading some states with later primaries to quickly redraw their congressional districts, ultimately resulting in a decline in minority representation in Congress.
It’s unclear whether Republicans in certain states will mount 11th-hour attempts to redraw congressional voting lines. Lawmakers in several places, including Texas, California, North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri, have already undertaken a mid-decade redistricting, though with political motivations.
Louisiana’s map
The protracted legal battle over Louisiana’s congressional map began in 2022, when state Republican lawmakers adopted new House district lines in the wake of the 2020 Census. That map consisted of five majority-White districts and one majority-Black district. Nearly one-third of Louisiana’s population is Black, according to Census data.
A group of African-American voters filed a lawsuit arguing the map violated Section 2 because it diluted Black voting strength and deprived minority voters of the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate. A federal judge in Baton Rouge ruled for the voters and ordered the state to enact a remedial map with a second majority-minority House district.
The re-drawn plan was adopted by Louisiana’s legislature in 2024 and reconfigured the state’s 6th Congressional District to ensure the map complied with the Voting Rights Act. Republicans in the state said they also crafted the map with a political goal: to protect powerful GOP incumbents in the House, namely Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Rep. Julia Letlow, a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat, was elected to represent Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District in November 2024.
But the new map drew its own challenge from a group of 12 self-described “non-African-American” voters, who argued it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A divided panel of three judges invalidated the new district lines and found that the state legislature relied too much on race when it crafted them.
Louisiana Republicans and Black voters appealed the decision to the Supreme Court in its last term and urged the justices to keep the re-drawn map intact. But the high court scheduled the case for re-argument in June and asked the parties to address whether race-based redistricting comports with the Constitution.
When the case was before the Supreme Court last year, Louisiana officials defended the new voting boundaries and urged the high court to leave them in place. But after the court said it would weigh the legality of race-based redistricting, the state reversed course and said its intentional creation of a majority-minority district violated the Constitution.
Reaction to the court’s decision
The Supreme Court’s decision swiftly drew responses largely divided along party lines, with Democrats decrying the ruling and Republicans cheering it.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, said the court’s ruling vindicates the state’s position. She said she will work with the governor and state legislature to provide guidance regarding a map that complies with the Constitution.
“The Supreme Court has ended Louisiana’s long-running nightmare of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map,” she said in a statement. “That was always unconstitutional — and this is a seismic decision reaffirming equal protection under our nation’s laws.”
GOP Rep. Richard Hudson, who leads the National Republican Congressional Committee, applauded the decision. The group is tasked with defending the Republican majority in the House.
“The Supreme Court made clear that our elections should be decided by voters, not engineered through unconstitutional mandates,” he said in a statement. “For too long, activists have manipulated the redistricting process to achieve political outcomes, dividing Americans instead of bringing them together. This ruling restores fairness, strengthens confidence in our elections, and ensures every voter is treated equally under the law.”
Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, lambasted the ruling, calling it a “gut punch.”
“Today is a dark day for America — the Supreme Court just rolled back the clock on the Civil Rights Movement,” he said in a statement. “The GOP-captured Supreme Court just effectively killed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a major step back in the fight for racial justice and fair representation.”