“One is an instance, two is a coincidence, three is a trend” goes the old saying. So it might be just a coincidence that for the second time in two weeks the Supreme Court took a step that could redound to the favor of Democrats in the election of the 119th Congress. We have grown used to bellyaching about the court from those quarters, but it could yet be that for liberals, at least when it comes to election jurisprudence, gratitude will be in order.

In a brief, unsigned order, the justices rejected Louisiana’s appeal from a district court ruling that its congressional districts unlawfully diluted the Black vote in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The case now rests with the riders of the Fifth United States Appeals Circuit, who are to resolve any outstanding questions “in advance of the 2024 congressional elections in Louisiana.” The court knows, then, that it is electorally implicated.

The fate of the Pelican State’s appeal was sealed after Allen v. Milligan came down from the Nine just this month. That case, which originated in Alabama, turned on whether that state’s districting scheme violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which after amendment by Congress in 1982 barred maps drawn with racial intent and those whose effects were discriminatory, even as the solons insisted proportional representation was not necessary.  

Writing for a five to four court, Chief Justice Roberts noted that for the “first 115 years following Reconstruction, the State of Alabama elected no black Representatives to Congress.” The majority ruled that Alabama’s map, which featured only one majority-Black district, was unlawful. Now, the district court’s finding that a second  district “in which black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it” reigns.

In a fiery dissent in Allen, Justice Thomas wrote that the decision “does not remedy or deter unconstitutional discrimination in districting in any way, shape or form. On the contrary it requires it, hijacking the districting process to pursue a goal that has no legitimate claim under our constitutional system: The proportional allocation of political power on the basis of race.” He was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch.

The teaching of Allen will now be applied to Louisiana, which is similarly situated to Alabama. Its current map has only one majority-Black district; another, it appears, will now be required. Our Russell Payne, after Allen, noted the political stakes for a House of Representatives where Republicans have a 222 to 213 advantage, meaning that Democrats need to gain only five seats to retake the chamber. 

Mr. Payne quotes an assistant editor at Sabato’s Crystal Ball as noting that Allen and its reverberations are “unquestionably great news for voting rights advocates and Democrats.” He also cites the senior editor of the Cook Political Report, David Wasserman’s prediction that “politically, the ruling could shake up the 2024 battle for the House, send shockwaves beyond Alabama.” Those waves are now felt at the bayou.

Ten years ago Democrats reacted with fury to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder. That case, which the left claimed had gutted the Voting Rights Act, was also decided by a five to four majority of a Supreme Court. The Obama Administration was outraged.  Now the so-called Roberts split is protecting the concept of majority-minority districts — reminding us of the folly of taking the Supreme Court for granted.