On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a closely watched case that could reshape the congressional map and potentially deliver up to 19 additional seats to Republicans in next year’s midterms. The justices heard this case last term but declined to issue a ruling.
At issue is the constitutionality of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the law’s most powerful remaining provision, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It requires that race be considered by mapmakers when drawing congressional districts to ensure that minority voters have adequate representation in Congress. Although we’re seeing a shift in voting trends in the age of President Trump, for decades, the vast majority of minority voters have cast their ballots for Democrats.
After a group of black voters filed suit, a district court judge in 2022 ruled that Louisiana’s congressional map “diluted black voting power” and required the creation of a second majority-black district. The court ordered the legislature to redraw the map ahead of the 2024 election, which ultimately led to Democrats winning a second congressional seat in the state.
A group of self-described “non-African American” voters, led by Phillip Callais, is now seeking to overturn the lower court’s ruling, alleging the remedial map was an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Additionally, Callais’ group argues:
[T]he race-based redistricting the court ordered to get in line with Section 2 is unconstitutional. Just as the Supreme Court ruled against race-based affirmative action at colleges and universities in 2023, they argue, the court should put an end to race-based political mapmaking under Section 2.In seeking a rehearing in the Louisiana case, the Supreme Court asked all sides in the case to consider whether the state’s “intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
If Section 2 is eliminated, states would be barred from taking the racial makeup of the population into account when drawing district lines, an outcome that would favor Republicans.
Conversely, as Politico notes, “advocates for minority voters warn a ‘colorblind’ interpretation of the Voting Rights Act would erode black, brown and Asian representation in American politics.”
According to Politico:
[T]he high court has signaled its particular interest in the argument that a core tenet of the Voting Rights Act may violate the Constitution.Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has already curtailed many of the protections within the 60-year-old civil rights law. Weakening it further has long been a goal of some Republican litigators, who have argued it gives Democrats an unfair partisan advantage.“It is time for the Supreme Court to finally eliminate this government-mandated business of divvying Americans up by race through redistricting and reaffirm our colorblind Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law,” Adam Kincaid, president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, said in a statement. His group has previously been involved in similar cases but isn’t representing any party in this one.If the court again restricts the law in Callais, advocates warn of diminished political power of minority voters in federal, state and local elections.
Given the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority, it’s entirely possible Section 2 could be declared unconstitutional.
If that were to happen, Cliff Albright, co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter Fund, told NPR, it’s possible that Republicans could “cement one-party control of the House for at least a generation.”
A recent report from his organization notes that “what happens in the South doesn’t just stay in the South. This racial gerrymandering has the ability to not just disempower, disenfranchise Black voters and to eliminate Black elected officials and Latino elected officials. What happens in these states impacts the entire country.”
Albright estimates that “as much as 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could also be lost.”
This follows a summer redistricting battle that began after former President Trump urged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw the state’s congressional map in a bid to add five new Republican seats in Congress. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom will learn on Election Day whether voters will approve a measure allowing him to strip the state’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission of its authority and return map-drawing power to the legislature for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles. If the measure passes, Democrats are expected to redraw the maps to create five additional districts of their own, countering Abbott’s advantage.
At any rate, the stakes in Louisiana v. Callais go well beyond any one state’s map — they could redraw the political lines of Congress itself.
Although it’s possible a ruling could arrive in December, the Court may wait until the end of its term in June to issue its decision.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY