The U.S. Supreme Court case Ronald Chisom, et al. v. Charles E. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al., 1990 involved a challenge to the electoral system for justices on the Louisiana Supreme Court under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The plaintiffs were African-American voters who argued that this system diluted their voting power and violated VRA by preventing them from electing candidates of their choice due to racially polarized voting patterns in at-large elections for state supreme court justices. The defendants contended that Section 2 did not apply to judicial elections but only legislative ones; however, the U.S Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs stating that VRA does indeed cover judicial elections as well as legislative ones.

In the dissenting opinion for Ronald Chisom, et al. v. Charles E. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority misinterpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). He contended that this section was not intended to apply to judicial elections and should only be used in cases involving legislative representation where minority groups could demonstrate they had less opportunity than others to elect representatives of their choice due to racial discrimination in voting practices or procedures. The justice believed that extending VRA protections to judicial elections would lead courts into uncharted territory with potentially far-reaching implications for state sovereignty over its judiciary system and could undermine public confidence in judges by suggesting they are representative officials rather than impartial arbiters of law.