This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/briefing/supreme-court-alabama-wildfires-ukraine.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| A Surprise Supreme Court Ruling | A Surprise Supreme Court Ruling |
| (about 5 hours later) | |
| The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters by drawing a congressional voting map with a single district in which they made up a majority. | The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters by drawing a congressional voting map with a single district in which they made up a majority. |
| Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both members of the court’s conservative wing, joined its three liberal members in the 5-to-4 ruling, which requires the state to draw a second district in which Black voters have the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. | Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both members of the court’s conservative wing, joined its three liberal members in the 5-to-4 ruling, which requires the state to draw a second district in which Black voters have the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. |
| Advocates had feared the case would undermine the Voting Rights Act, a landmark legislative achievement of the civil rights movement. Instead, it appeared to emerge largely unscathed. | Advocates had feared the case would undermine the Voting Rights Act, a landmark legislative achievement of the civil rights movement. Instead, it appeared to emerge largely unscathed. |
| “The court in recent years has been systematically cutting back on the voting rights act, and there was every reason to think that they would continue to do so in the context of redistricting,” our colleague Adam Liptak said. “To have a 5-4 majority going in a different direction, if only to uphold the status quo, was a big surprise.” | “The court in recent years has been systematically cutting back on the voting rights act, and there was every reason to think that they would continue to do so in the context of redistricting,” our colleague Adam Liptak said. “To have a 5-4 majority going in a different direction, if only to uphold the status quo, was a big surprise.” |
| The decision created bitter division among the justices. In a slashing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed disappointment in a decision “to sustain a system of institutionalized racial discrimination in districting.” | |
| The case is part of a pitched battle over redistricting that is playing out across the country. Civil rights leaders say the redistricting process often disadvantages growing minority communities. Republican state officials say the Constitution allows only a limited role for the consideration of race in drawing voting districts. |