I have a new Justice, Democracy, and Law column on SCOTUSblog. In advance of tomorrow’s argument in the huge Voting Rights Act case Louisiana v. Callais, I consider how principles of originalism and respect for precedent apply to the question upon which the Supreme Court ordered reargument. The column starts with a discussion of Justice Barrett’s new book, in which she lucidly discusses her judicial philosophy of originalism and how it relates to the doctrine of stare decisis. The column then explains why adherence to originalism and an appropriate application of the Court’s doctrine of stare decisis, which limits or overrules precedents that prove unworkable or conflict with other elements of law, yield the conclusion that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should remain intact. Instead, it’s the Shaw v. Reno line of cases that cannot withstand this analysis insofar as it conflicts with the power of Congress to prohibit redistricting that causes vote dilution in section of the VRA. The column concludes:

“From reading Barrett’s book, one gets the impression that she approaches her role on the Supreme Court with great “integrity,” as Will Baude has observed. One thus hopes that she will deliberate on the issues in Callais with the intellectual honesty to which she aspires – and will convince her colleagues on the court to do so as well. At the very least, given what she has written, one can reasonably expect that she will grapple with the issues of originalism and the doctrine of stare decisis applicable in Callais as examined in this essay (and developed in much greater length in an amicus brief submitted by my fellow election law scholar Travis Crum). It will be most disappointing if the court, as well as Barrett herself, fails in Callais to live up to the standard she set forth in her superb book.”