A decision on Georgia voting districts lies in judge’s hands

The federal trial challenging voting district maps in Georgia concluded on Thursday. Lawyers for the plaintiffs asserted throughout the trial that Black voters continue to face opposition from white voters and require federal assistance for a fair opportunity while the state argued that court intervention on behalf of Black voters is unnecessary.

A ruling in favor of the challengers could lead to the redrawing of one of Georgia’s 14 U.S. House seats, along with multiple state Senate and state House seats, to have majorities of Black residents. This potential shift could transfer control of these seats from Republicans to Democrats.

The state’s closing arguments centered on assessing how far Georgia has progressed since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, whether further intervention is warranted, and whether the proposals put forth by the plaintiffs are excessively race-conscious to the point of being unconstitutional.

Section 2 of the law stipulates that voting district lines cannot lead to discriminatory effects against minority voters.

Plaintiffs acknowledged some successes for Black voters in Georgia but maintained that the maps drafted by the Republican-controlled General Assembly still unlawfully suppressed Black voting power. Attorney Abha Khanna, representing the Plaintiffs said, “Minority vote dilution does not need to be accompanied by pitchforks and burning crosses and literacy tests for it to result in minority vote dilution.”

However, the state contended that lawmakers have provided Black individuals with equal political opportunities, arguing that when Black-preferred candidates lose, it’s due to partisan preferences or flawed candidates. Lawyer Bryan Tyson stated, “Once you get to a point where participation is equally open, then it’s just party politics, everyone making their best case to the voters.”

The Georgia case is part of a broader wave of litigation after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld its interpretation of the Voting Rights Act earlier in the year, dismissing a challenge to the law by Alabama. 

Courts in Alabama and Florida recently ruled that Republican-led legislatures unfairly diluted the voting power of Black residents. Legal challenges to congressional districts are ongoing in several other states.

Judge Steve Jones, who is presiding over the case without a jury, emphasized the significant impact of his decision. He committed to issuing a ruling promptly. In 2022, Jones made a preliminary ruling that some aspects of Georgia’s redistricting plan likely violate federal law.

The urgency is underscored because if Jones rules in favor of the plaintiffs, he would instruct the General Assembly to redraw maps before the 2024 elections. 

With appeals expected, time is running out before the March 2024 qualifying deadline for the May primaries, when all congressional and state legislative seats will be up for election.

The plaintiffs argued that Georgia’s failure is evident, given the substantial increase of nearly 500,000 Black residents between 2010 and 2020, yet no new Black-majority state Senate districts were created, and only two additional Black-majority state House districts were established. They also contended that Georgia should have another Black-majority congressional district.

Khanna emphasized that what they seek is what they are entitled to—a fair chance. She stated that the trial revealed how Georgia maneuvers to evade its legal obligations. In response, Tyson pointed to the election of Democrat Raphael Warnock to the U.S. Senate as evidence that candidates favored by Black voters can succeed.

Tyson raised the question of what Section 2 ultimately requires of Georgia and argued that while the General Assembly’s plans were mindful of race, the Plaintiffs’ proposals crossed the line by predominantly basing the maps on race. He emphasized the goal of moving toward a society less fixated on race.

Ari Savitzky, another lawyer for the Plaintiffs, asserted that the presented evidence demonstrated that in the areas of Georgia focused on by the Plaintiffs, racially polarized voting persists, necessitating intervention under the law. He stated, “When racial division no longer structures our politics, that’s when it ends.”