Burgum stated that while the panel made the right decision in upholding the redistricting plan, their justification based on the VRA was flawed. He argued that the panel should have ruled in favor of the state on other grounds.
This unexpected turn in the case has left many observers puzzled. The state’s decision to seek Supreme Court review of a case it had won is unusual, especially considering the political implications of the redistricting plan. The outcome of this appeal could have significant consequences for the interpretation and application of the Voting Rights Act in future redistricting cases. “Seeking the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, Burgum withdrew months ago and joined former President Trump’s campaign as an advisor. He is now being considered as a potential vice-presidential running mate. In a legal proceeding, Burgum challenged the assumption that complying with the VRA justifies racial discrimination, citing Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Allen v. Milligan (2023). The Supreme Court recently ruled against Alabama’s racially discriminatory election map, prompting Burgum to urge the Court to reexamine the district court’s ruling. He requested the Court to clarify that attempting VRA compliance does not justify making race the primary consideration in redistricting. North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, representing Burgum, declined to elaborate on the state’s stance. Experts like Jim Burling and J. Christian Adams weighed in on the complexity of VRA compliance and racial redistricting, noting the delicate balance between upholding voting rights and avoiding unconstitutional racial discrimination.”
That argument is not holding up well.
Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
