Supreme Court Restricts Use of Race in Redistricting Process

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Wednesday that states are almost entirely prohibited from considering race when drawing electoral maps to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The decision, which struck down Louisiana’s voting map, was driven by the conservative majority’s determination that lawmakers had illegally used race as the primary factor in creating a new majority-black district.

In the case of *Louisiana v. Callais*, the justices found that state lawmakers had engaged in an “unconstitutional gerrymander” by aiming to create a district with a majority of black voters. The suit originated from the 2020 census, during which Black Louisianans made up approximately one-third of the population but only one of six congressional districts was majority-black under the previous map. After Black voters filed a lawsuit, state lawmakers adopted a new map that added a second majority-black district, which snaked diagonally across the state. White voters challenged this as an illegal racial gerrymander, while lawmakers argued the district’s unusual shape was politically motivated to protect high-profile Republican officials like House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Justice Elena Kagan sharply dissented from the ruling, delivering her opinion from the bench—a rare and dramatic step. She warned that the court’s decision would “set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity” by effectively making it nearly impossible to use race when drawing voting maps. The ruling marks another significant blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been weakened by a series of recent Supreme Court decisions. It could allow Republican state legislatures to eliminate around a dozen majority-minority House seats held by Democrats across the South.

The decision’s impact on ongoing midterm redistricting battles remains unclear, though Louisiana is expected to lose one Democratic district as a result. States like Florida and Tennessee may also use this ruling to redraw maps, potentially eliminating other majority-minority districts. Any new maps that dismantle these districts are likely to trigger fresh litigation, further entangling the issue in the courts.