House Democrats condemned the Supreme Court as condoning suppression of Black voters hours after the high court’s majority ruled against a challenge to Alabama’s new map for congressional districts.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York said the court had “zero legitimacy” and compared it to the Confederacy late Monday.
“The Supreme Court majority has zero legitimacy. Ghosts of the confederacy are alive and well,” tweeted Mr. Jeffries, the Democratic caucus chair.
Rep. Barbara Lee of California reacted to the decision by calling it “Jim Crow 2.0.”
“Nearly a third of Alabama’s population is Black, and yet the Supreme Court just upheld a map that only gives them 1 out of 7 congressional seats. This is Jim Crow 2.0,” Ms. Lee tweeted.
House Democrats said the ruling was another reason for their party to end the Senate filibuster and pass their voting legislation in the Senate.
SEE ALSO: Supreme Court allows Alabama’s redistricting map despite racial gerrymandering claim
Progressive House Chair Pramilla Jayapal of Washington tweeted: “This is what voter suppression looks like. It’s time to end the filibuster and protect YOUR right to vote.”
Rep. Mondaire Jones of New York alluded to expanding the court: “Watching people tie themselves into knots to avoid calling for Court expansion. Remember that Congress passed the original Voting Rights Act. This Supreme Court simply doesn’t care.”
In a 5-4 decision, the court allowed Alabama to carry out its congressional redistricting proposal despite claims that the Republican-controlled state Legislature created racially gerrymandered map boundaries.
The decision reverses a district court ruling that ordered Alabama to redraw a map for the upcoming election cycle that would not mitigate the Black vote.
In the majority decision, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh stated that the district court ordered a new map just weeks before the 2022 elections were to be underway with absentee voting in primaries in March.
“When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled. Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties, and voters, among others. It is one thing for a State on its own to toy with its election laws close to a State’s elections. But it is quite another thing for a federal court to swoop in and re-do a State’s election laws in the period close to an election,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the liberal wing of the court. In his dissent, he said the lower court “properly applied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction.”
• Kerry Picket can be reached at kpicket@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.