The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais may prove to be one of the most consequential voting rights rulings in decades. Although the case arose from a dispute over Louisiana’s congressional map, the Court’s opinion reaches far beyond a single state’s redistricting process.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court significantly narrowed the circumstances under which Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can justify race-conscious districting and, in doing so, alteredthe legal framework that has governed minority voting rights claims for more than a generation. But is the Voting Rights Act really dead?
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 in response to widespread racial discrimination that had effectively disenfranchised Black voters throughout much of the South. The statute was designed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition against denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race.
Section 2 of the VRA prohibits discriminatory voting practices or procedures, including those alleged to diminish or weaken minority voting power, known as minority vote dilution. Specifically, Section 2 prohibits any voting qualification or practice applied or imposed by any state or political subdivision that results in the “denial or abridgement” of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority.
The statute further provides that a violation is established if, “based on the totality of circumstances,” electoral processes “are not equally open to participation by members of” a racial or language minority group” in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives of their choice.
The Court’s recent decision in Callais is one of several key Supreme Court rulings that have interpreted Section 2 in the context of redistricting. In Thornburg v. Gingles, the Court established the following test for establishing vote dilution under Section 2: (1) the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district,” (2) the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive, and (3) the minority group must be able to prove that the majority group “votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it … usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.”
The Court further established that a violation of Section 2 is established if, based on the “totality of the circumstances” and “as a result of the challenged practice or structure[,] plaintiffs do not have an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes and to elect candidates of their choice.”
The Supreme Court’s Decision in Louisiana v. Callais more than two years of litigation, two separate groups of voters have challenged Louisiana’s congressional maps. The first suit alleged that the state’s map violated Section 2 of the VRA. To resolve the litigation, the Louisiana Legislature adopted a new redistricting map, which established a second majority-Black congressional district. A separate group of plaintiffs subsequently filed suit challenging the 2024 congressional map on the grounds that the second majority Black district created by the Legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause because it sorted voters predominantly by race.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that Louisiana’s map could not survive constitutional scrutiny. The Court held that Section 2 did not require Louisiana to create the additional majority-Black district and therefore could not provide a compelling interest justifying the state’s use of race in drawing the map. More significantly, the Court reinterpreted Section 2 itself. According to the majority, Section 2 liability should not be based merely on disparate electoral outcomes. Instead, the Court held that plaintiffs must demonstrate evidence supporting a strong inference that the state intentionally afforded minority voters less opportunity because of their race.
“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 … was designed to enforce the Constitution— not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.
The Callais decision represents a substantial departure from the understanding of Section 2 that has prevailed since Congress amended the statute in 1982. By emphasizing discriminatory intent rather than discriminatory results, the Court effectively raises the bar for future voting-rights plaintiffs.
To critics of the majority decision, the Court appeared to send the message that racial discrimination in redistricting will pass muster when done under the guise of partisan gerrymandering. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent:
The Voting Rights Act is — or, now more accurately, was — ‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history’… It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality… I dissent, then, from this latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.
The bottom-line is that whether one views the ruling as a restoration of constitutional colorblindness or a significant retrenchment of voting-rights protections, its impact on redistricting litigation is likely to be profound. The decision does not merely resolve a dispute over one Louisiana congressional district, but rather reshapes the balance between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, potentially redefining how minority voting rights are protected for years to come.
