Racial gerrymandering may be here to stay

The outcry was immediate and harsh following a recent 6-3 vote by the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Critics slammed the court for weakening the Voting Rights Act, a federal law that had long enjoyed bipartisan support and ensured Black political representation in the South. Concerns have been raised about a potential revival of Jim Crow-era voter disenfranchisement.

The impact of the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais is still uncertain, but some Southern states have already started to redraw their legislative districts with the aim of securing Republican control. It is predicted that several Black Democratic legislators could lose their seats in the upcoming midterm elections as a result. Democrats are threatening to respond with their own redistricting plans.

Following a 2019 court decision, political gerrymandering – where districts are manipulated to favor a particular party – cannot be legally challenged under federal law. Prior to the Callais ruling, lawmakers had to be careful not to excessively weaken the voting power of minority residents while seeking partisan control of a district.

However, after Callais, legislators must now disregard the race of voters entirely to avoid potential legal challenges like the one faced by Louisiana. Moving forward, gerrymandering is permitted, as long as it is race-neutral. Despite this, research suggests that race may still play a significant role in the design of congressional districts, especially in the South where it can be a stronger predictor of voting behavior than party affiliation.

Political gerrymandering involves drawing electoral districts to benefit one party over another, with district-drawing typically controlled by state legislatures. Our study, conducted by political scientists with expertise in Congress, elections, and constitutional law, indicates that taking both race and party into account can enhance partisan advantage when redrawing districts.

The research challenges a claim made by Justice Alito in a recent Supreme Court case, suggesting that only party affiliation, not race, is relevant in district-drawing for partisan advantage. By analyzing election results in South Carolina from 2010 to 2020, our study reveals that voters’ race is a more consistent predictor of their voting behavior than their party affiliation. This suggests that legislators may have a data-driven incentive to consider race when creating partisan districts, particularly in Southern states.

In a hypothetical redistricting scenario in South Carolina, the study highlights the importance of understanding how racial and partisan demographics can influence voting outcomes. It warns that relying solely on past partisan returns to redraw districts may not accurately predict future voting behavior, especially in areas where race plays a significant role in shaping political preferences.

While using race in redistricting for partisan advantage may raise concerns of discrimination, our findings suggest that race could still influence political gerrymandering processes despite claims of being race-neutral. Voting rights advocates are urged to remain vigilant against potential manipulation of district lines based on racial demographics.