On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled six to three in Louisiana v. Callais, a decision that eviscerated Section Two of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). Section Two serves to prohibit voting laws and district maps from diluting minority voting power and allows people to sue states if maps obstruct Black or Latino voters’ ability to elect candidates. The new ruling significantly weakened one of the federal government’s main tools for challenging congressional maps that dilute minority voting power.
The case began after Louisiana lawmakers enacted House Bill One (HB1), a congressional district map with only one majority-Black district despite Black residents making up nearly one third of the state’s population. Plaintiffs, including civil rights advocates and Black voters, argued that the map violated Section Two of the VRA by diluting Black voters’ voting power. A lower court agreed and ordered the state to create a second majority-Black district.
Louisiana adopted a new map with an additional majority-Black district, but it was challenged by another group of plaintiffs, including conservative voters, who deemed it unconstitutional racial gerrymandering because race too largely impacted the redrawing. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais after a three-judge district court blocked the state from using the revised map.
The Court’s ruling reflects the conservative majority’s idea of a “color-blind Constitution,” arguing that race should not play a significant role in districting, even when used to protect minority representation. Critics argue that this ignores the reality of racial discrimination in voting and shifts Section Two away from its intended purpose of examining district maps to identify intentional discrimination. Andrew Siegel, a constitutional law professor at Seattle University, argued that the Court “effectively achieved the same results” as declaring Section Two unconstitutional by interpreting the law in a way that makes successful claims nearly impossible.
Following the court’s ruling, several southern states are now pursuing new maps. On May 6, 2026, Justin Pearson, a representative of Memphis’ only majority-Black district, was blocked from entering a Tennessee committee meeting. The next day, Tennessee lawmakers passed a new congressional map erasing the majority-Black district. The revised map splits Memphis into three majority-White districts. “The majority of Black folks in the South vote for Democrats,” Laura Felpo, Garfield High School’s ethnic studies teacher, said. “By redrawing maps to give more power to Republicans, they’re disenfranchising Black voters who largely vote Democratic.”
The ruling also arrives amidst growing efforts by Republicans, such as Donald Trump and state lawmakers, to redraw congressional districts outside the traditional ten-year census cycle. Redistricting traditionally occurs every decade following the census, but some states are now pursuing mid-decade redraws for political advantage. Critics argue that the decision removes one of the few remaining limits on aggressive partisan gerrymandering because states can now justify maps as political rather than racial. “As long as you say your goal is to lock in partisan advantage, no one can win a claim,” Professor Siegel said.
The effects extend beyond racial representation. As districts become less competitive and more politically polarized, primary elections often become more important than general elections. Candidates increasingly appeal to the most ideologically committed voters within their parties, contributing to the election of more extreme representatives and making bipartisan cooperation in Congress more difficult.
For many critics, the decision represents more than a change in redistricting law. They argue that it marks another step in the Supreme Court’s decades-long weakening of the Voting Rights Act following earlier decisions like Shelby County v. Holder. “It doesn’t really feel like a true democracy if you’re locking people out of their right to vote,” Felpo said.
