The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that Louisiana’s new congressional map, which includes districts based on race, is unconstitutional. The ruling is bound to be controversial.
It might also be a bit nuanced.
The majority found the map amounted to what it called unconstitutional “racial gerrymandering.” based on race, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Critics will argue the decision effectively undercuts the 1965 Voting Rights Act, intended to end racial discrimination in voting practices, such as requiring literacy tests.
Supporters will argue the need for the law has long since been remedied.
At least some will say the problem is the continuing use of “race” as a pillar of law, even if the intent of such efforts is to remedy past discrimination.
The issue at least some will have is that the solution to the problem of “racism” in law cannot be the enshrinement of racism in law, even if some believe it is done “for good reasons.”
Either before the VRA or since, if one continues to treat citizens differently because of their race, we haven’t really “solved” the problem of racism; we’ve only kept it in a new form.
But the decision might not mean “race” cannot ever be a factor for voting rights: it simply cannot be the main motivation.
Under the Constitution, states generally aren't allowed to use race as the primary tool for sorting voters unless they have an extremely good reason.
Because race was the main factor, the map had to pass "strict scrutiny." The Court ruled the map failed because it wasn't "narrowly tailored.” It wasn't the most careful or necessary way to solve the legal issue.
Even if "allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context," as Justice Samuel Alito wrote, the decision might not actually mean race can “never” be a consideration.
But it moves policy in that direction.
Separately, in June 2023, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC that such programs violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
That 6-3 ruling mandates that higher education admissions must use "colorblind" criteria, rejecting the use of race as a specific factor.
Opinion about both decisions will reveal a fundamental conflict over means and ends, as in the claim that “the ends justify the means” versus the argument that “the means are the ends.” In other words, can law and policy be “racist” in a new way to remedy the problem of racism?
Or, as the philosophical debate suggests, must the means match the desired ends?
Some argue the ends justify the means: the compelling end goal is to create a more equitable society by overcoming systemic racism.
Others will argue an unethical or unconstitutional means is itself the problem.
In other words, the debate is over ends and means. Does the goal of equality (the "end") justify discriminatory practices (the unequal "means").
To use a simple analogy, some might argue it is permissible to use hateful means to achieve a “loving end.” Others will argue that is impossible: the hateful means become the actual ends.
Or, to put it simply, one cannot achieve a state of love using hate. In other words, must the means must embody the end they seek to create?
Mahatma Gandhi argued that means and ends are "two sides of the same coin". If the means are hateful, they "taint" the outcome, ensuring the final result is also characterized by hate or resentment.
Likewise, Martin Luther King Jr. noted that "hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that". Using hateful means only intensifies the cycle of violence and adds "deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars".
The "ends-means" debate splits between those who believe the government must use race-conscious means to reach a truly equitable end, and those who believe that using race as a means only perpetuates a discriminatory system.
