The US Supreme Court appears poised to nullify the Voting Rights Act, marking a significant setback for civil rights. The Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement, has been under gradual nullification by the Supreme Court for over a decade. The latest threat comes from the court's consideration of the Louisiana v. Callais case, which challenges a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2. This section safeguards voters from racial gerrymandering aimed at diluting Black political power.
The case revolves around new congressional districting maps drawn in Louisiana after the 2020 census. The state initially created maps with only one majority-Black congressional district, despite seven more racially fair alternatives. Voters sued, and federal courts mandated that Louisiana draw new maps ensuring Black voters would be the majority in a second district, reflecting their population share and providing equal opportunities for Black Louisianans to elect representatives of their choice.
However, a group of 'non-African-American voters' has sued to overturn these racially proportionate maps, arguing that enforcing the Voting Rights Act violates their rights under the 14th and 15th amendments. They claim that maps designed to address racial discrimination against Black people actually discriminate against non-Black (white) individuals. The court appears likely to rule in their favor.
If this happens, it will signify the end of the Voting Rights Act, widely regarded as the pinnacle of the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has been dismantling the Act for years. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, the court struck down much of Section 5, which required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal preclearance for changes to voting laws.
Subsequent cases have further narrowed the conditions for voting rights claims and expanded states' leeway to create voting laws that were previously deemed discriminatory. Chief Justice Roberts argued that racial animus and inequality had diminished, making such a regime unnecessary and a violation of states' rights. This led to a dramatic increase in the gap between Black and white voter participation rates, especially in districts previously subject to Section 5 preclearance.
On Wednesday, the court seemed determined to apply a similar logic to Section 2, demanding that Janai Nelson, the head of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, justify its continued efficacy. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito asserted that racial gerrymandering is justified if intended as a partisan gerrymander, focusing on lawmakers' intentions rather than the discriminatory impact. This interpretation contradicts previous Supreme Court precedent and congressional evidence, which emphasize the discriminatory impact as sufficient for illegal racial discrimination.
The case reflects two major trends of the Roberts court: hostility to racial justice claims by minorities and a willingness to invert civil rights law and Reconstruction amendments to entrench historical hierarchies of race and gender. Louisiana's attorney general, who switched sides in the case, claimed that assuming Black voters would vote differently than white voters is unconstitutional. This argument elicited exasperation from Justice Kagan.
The Supreme Court's ruling could have significant implications, potentially allowing racial gerrymandering to minimize and dilute Black voter power. If the court rules in Louisiana's favor, it will no longer be illegal to racially gerrymander congressional districts in this manner. However, it will be illegal to use race to redistrict in a way that restores Black voter power.
This decision, expected in June, just before the November 2026 midterms, could result in Republicans gaining 19 House seats. The Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of American democracy, is at risk of being nullified, raising concerns about the erosion of voting rights and the potential for increased racial gerrymandering.
