The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Louisiana must redraw its congressional map, in a decision that significantly weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.
In a 6-3 decision, the court effectively rendered ineffective Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a crucial part of the 1965 civil rights law designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting. Section 2 has historically been used to ensure fair treatment of minority voters during redistricting.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated, “Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.” He added that complying with Section 2 could not justify the state’s use of race-based redistricting, deeming the state’s attempt to comply with a previous ruling an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissenting opinion, argued the court had accomplished a “demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”
The case stemmed from a dispute over how much weight lawmakers can offer to race when redrawing districts to ensure adequate representation for Black voters. The Supreme Court initially heard arguments in March and then, unusually, asked lawyers to re-argue the case last fall, focusing on the constitutionality of Section 2.
Years of legal challenges preceded the Supreme Court’s decision. Following the 2020 census, Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature drew a map with a single majority-Black district. A group of Black voters sued in 2022, arguing the map diluted their influence by concentrating them in one district while dispersing them across others.
The Black voters initially prevailed, and a federal judge ordered the state to create a map with a second majority-Black district. Louisiana complied, drawing a new map with a district stretching diagonally from Shreveport to Baton Rouge.
However, a group of non-Black voters challenged this new map, claiming it unlawfully sorted voters by race, violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. A three-judge panel agreed, blocking the map’s implementation last year. This decision was paused by the Supreme Court, and the map was used in the 2024 election, where Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat, won a seat.
During oral arguments, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Edward Greim, noted the irregular shape of the district as evidence that race was a predominant factor in its design. Lawyers representing Louisiana and the original Black voters argued the shape was necessary to protect the seats of key Republican lawmakers – House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Julia Letlow.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court rule in Louisiana v Callais?
The Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could not justify the state’s use of race in redrawing its House district lines.
What is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a provision of the 1965 law that prevents racial discrimination in voting, specifically ensuring minority voters are treated fairly in redistricting.
What was the dissenting opinion in this case?
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, stating the court had accomplished a “demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”
Given this ruling, what impact might we see on redistricting efforts in other states, and how will voting rights groups adapt their strategies in light of this new legal landscape?