Appeals court ruling could signal more Voting Rights Act overhauls

A federal appeals court recently ruled voters in two different minority groups cannot coalesce to claim a Texas political map stripped their voting power, a decision that could give Republicans a boost to win congressional seats in the South.

The court’s Aug. 1 decision curtails what conservative critics argue is the Democrats’ misuse of the Voting Rights Act to create voting districts favoring their party in Galveston, Texas. This ruling has the potential to reshape the political landscape not just in the Lone Star State but also in Louisiana and Mississippi, states within the jurisdiction of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — potentially shifting numerous seats from Democrat to Republican.

The case, Petteway v. Galveston County, centered on the interpretation of Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race or color. The full appeals court concluded that Section 2 does not support coalition claims. These claims involve districts where no single minority group forms a majority but together, different minority groups comprise a voting majority.

Galveston County, with a population that is 58% white, 22.5% Hispanic, and 12.5% black, had previously drawn a coalition district combining black and Hispanic populations. This district was represented by a black Democrat until the 2021 redistricting, which eliminated the coalition district, and prompted lawsuits from the NAACP and the Justice Department, arguing that coalition districts are mandated by the VRA.

At first, a federal district court judge and a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit disagreed with Galveston County. Then, an en-banc panel ruled 12-6 last week to reverse two prior decisions against the county, finding that minority coalition claims are inconsistent with the clear text of Section 2 and “Supreme Court cases rejecting similar ‘sub-majority’ vote dilution claims.”

The en-banc panel emphasized that Section 2 protects individuals based on a single class, either race or language minority, not combined minority groups. The court highlighted that Section 2’s language specifies protections for a “class” of citizens, not “classes,” underscoring that political alliances between different minority groups are not covered.

Appeals court Judge Edith Jones wrote that the 5th Circuit would not remain at the forefront of rubber stamping litigation, “not compelled by law or the Supreme Court, whose principal effects are to (a) supplant legislative redistricting by elected representatives with judicial fiat; (b) encourage divisively counting citizens by race and ethnicity; and (c) displace the fundamental principle of democratic rule by the majority with balkanized interests.”

This decision overturns a prior 1988 precedent, Campos v. City of Baytown, which had recognized coalition districts. The 5th Circuit criticized the reasoning in Campos as insufficient and erroneous, emphasizing that Section 2 does not support the plaintiffs’ claims.

The implications of this ruling are significant. It effectively stops the use of the VRA to create coalition districts aimed at bolstering Democratic representation in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and the potential for the Biden administration to appeal now to the Supreme Court has been elevated.

In Texas alone, several House districts currently represented by Democrats could be affected.

This decision aligns the 5th Circuit with the 6th Circuit, which had previously ruled in 1996 that Section 2 does not cover coalition districts.

The 5th Circuit’s ruling may prompt other courts, such as the 11th Circuit, to reconsider its precedent on this question. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have not yet announced if they plan to appeal the Galveston decision to the Supreme Court.