Biden's Voting Rights Fight Faces Higher Burden After Supreme Court Ruling

President Joe Biden made Georgia the focal point of the national voting rights struggle in 2021. He labeled the state's Republican-led election overhaul "Jim Crow in the 21st century." Five years later, a separate fight involving allegations of racial discrimination is drawing eyes across the country as it unfolds in federal court. This time the dispute revolves around new congressional and state maps drawn in 2021. Challengers now face a much heavier burden of proof following the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. The eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a lower court decision that struck down Georgia's maps. They sent the case back to District Judge Steve Jones. The appeals court told Jones to rethink the challenge under the new framework from Callais. This standard raised the bar for plaintiffs claiming racial discrimination in redistricting. Under this rule, showing that a map weakened Black voters' influence is not enough on its own. Plaintiffs must provide evidence supporting a "strong inference" of intentional racial discrimination. They also must separate the effects of race from those of partisan politics. This distinction matters greatly in Georgia. Black voters there overwhelmingly back Democratic candidates. That creates significant overlap between race and party affiliation. It could make it harder for challengers to prove that race, rather than political gain, drove the district lines. Black voters and voting rights groups filed three lawsuits challenging the maps between December 2021 and January 2022. They argued the districts diluted Black voting power in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Jones ruled for the challengers in 2023. He ordered Georgia to create additional majority-Black districts, including one congressional district, two state Senate districts, and five state House districts. Georgia then enacted replacement maps that satisfied Judge Jones' order while keeping Republican political advantage elsewhere. Those new maps were used in the 2024 elections and remain for the 2026 cycle. The legality of the original maps stayed at the center of Georgia's appeal before the higher court. Before Callais, plaintiffs suing under Section 2 could win without proving lawmakers intentionally discriminated based on race. Courts focused heavily on whether a map diminished minority voters' ability to elect their preferred candidates. Now courts must examine if present-day racial discrimination caused the redrawing or if political advantages did. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said he does not believe the Georgia challenge will survive the new test. "I don't think a challenge will succeed because there is no evidence of current racial discrimination going on in the state legislature," von Spakovsky said. "Prior rulings against the state were based on judges misconstruing and misinterpreting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by claiming there was racial dilution resulting from partisan gerrymandering." He continued, "That is not the correct legal standard under Section 2." Partisan gerrymandering is constitutional and is not a violation of Section 2. Georgia can argue lawmakers pursued partisan objectives rather than targeting Black voters because of their race.

Because Black voters and Democrats largely share the same ballot lines in Georgia, isolating one motive from the other becomes a major hurdle for challengers. "The Supreme Court in the Callais decision specifically said that a viable claim under Section 2 can only be shown if there is evidence of current racial discrimination," von Spakovsky told reporters. He added that judges must distinguish between racial and political bases for the way people vote. In other words, there's no racial dilution going on when individuals are voting a particular way because of their politics. Jones now faces a hard choice regarding this remanded case. Plaintiffs could ask to supplement the record with revised maps, updated statistical analyses or additional evidence addressing the Supreme Court's new requirements. The 11th Circuit, however, did not automatically grant them a new trial or authorize them to rebuild their case from the beginning. Georgia could argue that the plaintiffs have already received a full trial and that Jones should apply the new standard solely to the existing record. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP Whatever outcome emerges is unlikely to alter Georgia's districts before the November 2026 midterm elections. The appeals court did not order the state to reinstate the original 2021 maps, and Georgia has already conducted its primaries using the replacement districts created from the 2023 map. This leaves a narrow window where legal arguments play out without changing the actual lines on the ground for next year's general election.