We are witnessing a return to Jim Crow
In the months before a consequential midterm election, two redistricting battles have reached the United States Supreme Court, each illuminating a different face of the same enduring question: who truly holds the power to shape democratic representation. In Virginia, Democrats ask the Court to honor the will of voters whose approved map was struck down on procedural grounds; in Alabama, the same Court has already moved to erase a congressional district where Black voters held a majority, overturning protections that civil rights law had long guaranteed. Together, these cases reveal how the architecture of American democracy is being quietly reconstructed, one court order at a time, ahead of an election that may hinge on the very maps now in dispute.
- Virginia's state supreme court nullified a voter-approved congressional map on procedural grounds, potentially costing Democrats four House seats and prompting an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court days before the midterm calendar tightens.
- Simultaneously, a Republican-dominated Supreme Court voted 6-3 to let Alabama eliminate its majority-Black congressional district, overriding a federal court's finding of intentional racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act.
- The three dissenting justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson — warned that the majority was ignoring its own prior ruling from just three years ago requiring Alabama to preserve Black electoral representation, calling the reversal a deliberate erasure.
- The NAACP's president invoked the specter of Jim Crow, as civil rights advocates scrambled to mobilize voters in response to what they described as a coordinated judicial dismantling of minority voting protections.
- With congressional control potentially hanging on a handful of redrawn districts, both cases now converge on the same institution — a Court whose rulings in the coming weeks will effectively redraw the boundaries of American democratic power before November.
Virginia Democrats made an urgent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the state's own supreme court struck down a voter-approved congressional map, ruling that the legislature had violated constitutional procedure in placing it on the ballot. The map, drawn by the Democratic-controlled legislature, had been designed to flip as many as four Republican-held House seats. Voters had endorsed it in a referendum. The state court rejected it anyway, declaring the procedural flaw so severe it invalidated the entire process. Democratic House Speaker Don Scott asked the nation's highest court to set that ruling aside and let the map stand.
The appeal arrived at a fraught moment. Across the country, congressional district lines were being redrawn in real time, with outcomes likely to determine whether Republicans retained their House majority in November. Virginia was one front in a broader war over who controls electoral maps — and whether courts could override voters when they disliked the result.
Even as Virginia Democrats filed their emergency application, the Supreme Court was moving in the opposite direction in Alabama. In a 6-3 vote along party lines, the Republican-dominated Court cleared the way for Alabama to eliminate a congressional district where Black voters held a majority. A federal court had previously blocked the map, finding it violated both the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment through intentional dilution of Black voting power. The Supreme Court overturned that order, directing the lower court to reconsider in light of a recent ruling that had gutted protections for a majority-Black district in Louisiana.
The three Democratic-appointed justices dissented sharply, noting that just three years earlier the Supreme Court itself had required Alabama to create two districts where Black voters could elect representatives of their choice. The lower court's finding of intentional discrimination, they argued, rested on its own comprehensive record and stood independent of any other legal question — a finding the majority had simply chosen to disregard.
Derrick Johnson of the NAACP called the ruling madness and warned of a return to Jim Crow, urging Americans to vote in November to reverse what he saw as a systematic unraveling of civil rights-era protections. The contrast between the two cases was difficult to ignore: in Virginia, a court was blocking what voters had chosen; in Alabama, a court was enabling what state officials wanted, even at the cost of erasing Black electoral power. The question now hanging over both cases — and over the midterms themselves — was what kind of democracy the Supreme Court intended to leave standing.
On Monday, Virginia's Democrats made an urgent plea to the nation's highest court, asking it to overturn a decision that had just gutted their best chance at gaining congressional seats before November's midterm elections. A week earlier, Virginia's own supreme court had blocked a map that voters had approved in a referendum, ruling that the state legislature had violated constitutional procedure in submitting it to the ballot. The Democratic-controlled legislature had drawn new districts designed to flip as many as four Republican-held House seats. Voters had endorsed the plan. The state court rejected it anyway, declaring the procedural flaw so fundamental that it poisoned the entire referendum. Now Don Scott, the Democratic speaker of Virginia's house of delegates, was asking the U.S. Supreme Court to set that decision aside and let the map stand.
The timing was not accidental. Across the country, the shape of congressional districts was being redrawn in real time, and the outcomes would likely determine whether Republicans held their House majority in November. Virginia's case was one front in a larger battle over who gets to decide how electoral maps are drawn—and whether courts could second-guess the will of voters when they did not like the result.
But even as Virginia Democrats filed their emergency application, the Supreme Court was moving in the opposite direction on the other side of the country. In Alabama, the same Republican-dominated court had just cleared the way for the state to eliminate a congressional district where Black voters held a majority. The decision came by a 6-3 vote along party lines. A federal court had previously blocked Alabama's map, finding that it violated both the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally diluting Black voting power. The Supreme Court overturned that order, directing the lower court to reconsider in light of a recent decision gutting protections for a majority-Black district in Louisiana. Alabama's Republican governor had already signed bills allowing her to void primary results and call special elections under the new boundaries, anticipating the court's blessing.
The three Democratic-appointed justices dissented sharply. Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that just three years ago, the Supreme Court itself had affirmed an order requiring Alabama to create two districts where Black voters could elect representatives of their choice. The district court's finding of intentional discrimination, they wrote, was based on a comprehensive examination of Alabama's transparent effort to limit Black voting power. That finding stood independent of any other legal question. The majority had simply decided to ignore it.
Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, called the ruling madness. "We are witnessing a return to Jim Crow," he said, urging Americans to vote in November to end what he saw as a systematic dismantling of voting rights protections won in the civil rights era. The contrast between the two cases was stark: in Virginia, a court was blocking what voters wanted; in Alabama, a court was enabling what state officials wanted, even though it meant erasing the electoral power of Black citizens.
Virginia Democrats argued that the state court had overreached, citing a 2023 Supreme Court ruling warning that state courts may not arrogate to themselves powers vested in state legislatures over federal elections. They were asking the nation's highest court to intervene on behalf of voters. But the same court had just shown it was willing to let states eliminate majority-minority districts, even when doing so violated the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The question now was whether the Supreme Court would treat Virginia's case the same way—and what that would mean for the map of American democracy heading into the midterms.
Citações Notáveis
This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy— Virginia's state supreme court, explaining its decision to block the voter-approved map
We are witnessing a return to Jim Crow. And anybody who is alarmed by these developments better be making a plan to vote in November to put an end to this madness while we still can— Derrick Johnson, NAACP president, on the Alabama ruling
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that Virginia's state court blocked the map on procedural grounds rather than on the merits?
Because it suggests the court found a technical reason to reject something voters had approved. If the legislature violated procedure, does that erase what the people voted for? That's the question Virginia Democrats are asking the Supreme Court.
And the Alabama case seems to go the opposite direction entirely.
Exactly. A federal court said Alabama's map intentionally discriminated against Black voters. The Supreme Court just said that finding doesn't matter anymore, not because it was wrong, but because of a different case about Louisiana. It's the same court, same justices, but the outcomes are reversed.
What's the practical effect on the ground?
In Virginia, Democrats lose four potential House seats. In Alabama, Black voters lose a district where they could actually elect someone who represents them. Both happen before November. Both reshape who controls Congress.
Is there a legal principle that explains why the Court is ruling differently in these two cases?
That's the puzzle. The Court seems to be saying state courts can't override voter-approved maps, but the federal courts also can't protect voting rights when states intentionally dilute them. It's hard to see a consistent principle—except that both outcomes favor Republicans.
What did the dissenters say?
They pointed out that three years ago, the same Court had ordered Alabama to create two majority-Black districts. Now it's saying that order doesn't matter. They called it a reversal of civil rights protections that took decades to win.
So what happens next?
Virginia's case goes to the Supreme Court. If it rules the way it did on Alabama, the map stays blocked. If it rules differently, Virginia gets its new districts. Either way, the midterms are coming fast, and the maps are being redrawn in real time.