54
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In ongoing redistricting lawsuits mainly across the South, Republican state officials have been raising novel arguments that threaten to erode a key set of protections against racial discrimination in the election process.
Three additional legal arguments have emerged, however, that could put Section 2 protections at risk — and some of the Supreme Court's conservative justices have already shown interest in these positions.
More than a dozen Republican state attorneys general — from Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia — have lined up in support of the argument against a private right of action with a friend-of-the-court brief.
Though the Supreme Court rejected Alabama's attempt to severely limit how race can be used when redrawing voting maps, the state's Republican officials have signaled they're gearing up for another challenge against race-based redistricting.
And in a recent court filing, GOP officials said they believe evidence gathering is needed on whether it's still constitutional for Congress to allow redistricting based on race under Section 2.
They claim that just as federal courts have effectively put an end to race-conscious admissions programs at colleges and universities, they should also stop allowing political map drawing based on race.
The original article contains 1,137 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
