print-icon
print-icon

In Huge Win For Republicans, Supreme Court Curbs Use Of Race In Drawing Voting Districts

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Authored...

In a sweeping 6-3 decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional map with a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais (No. 24-109) delivers a major victory for Republicans by sharply curtailing the Voting Rights Act’s ability to compel the creation of predominantly Black or Hispanic districts - a development that could help the GOP protect and expand its House majority in the 2026 midterms and beyond.

Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, properly interpreted, did not require Louisiana to draw the additional majority-Black district in Senate Bill 8. Because the state’s use of race was not justified by a compelling interest, the map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A Major Reset of Voting Rights Law

The decision does far more than resolve one Louisiana map. It fundamentally updates the legal framework for Voting Rights Act challenges that has been in place since Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). The Court made three critical changes that will make it significantly harder for plaintiffs to force race-conscious districting:

  • Illustrative maps must be race-neutral: Plaintiffs can no longer draw “demonstration maps” that deliberately maximize majority-minority districts. Any alternative map must fully comply with all of a state’s legitimate, non-racial districting goals - including traditional criteria and the state’s partisan political objectives.
  • Race must be disentangled from party: To prove political cohesion and racial bloc voting, plaintiffs must now control for partisan affiliation. Simply showing that Black voters and white voters support different candidates is no longer enough if the pattern tracks party preference rather than race.
  • Focus on current intentional discrimination: The “totality of circumstances” analysis must center on evidence of present-day intentional racial discrimination in voting. Historical discrimination and generalized “societal effects” carry far less weight.

These changes align Section 2 more closely with the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination and the Constitution’s general bar on race-based government action.

0