Tipsheet

The Supreme Court Has Ruled on the Voting Rights Act

The time has come. The Supreme Court hears arguments regarding what the media is calling a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which has protected race-based congressional apportionment, specifically majority-minority districts. The case stems from Louisiana v. Callais, in which the state is seeking to redraw its maps. The first attempt was slapped as a Voting Rights Violation, and the latest attempt, which drew a majority-black, was challenged as unconstitutional 

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court found the drawing of this district unconstitutional, but did not officially strike down Section II of the Voting Rights Act. We have some nuance here, with the majority trying to tailor a narrow ruling, while the dissenting opinion presents a different interpretation of this case. The Court ruled that the current Louisiana map is unconstitutional, but Section II is not, though the liberal wing claims this provision got obliterated. 

"Compliance with Section 2, as properly construed, can provide such a reason. Correctly understood, Section 2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map. Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State's use of race-based redistricting here," Justice Alito wrote. 

Yet, in Justice Kagan's dissent, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, she writes that this decisions virtually does that: "The new Callais requirements will effectively insulate any practice, including any districting scheme, said by a State to have any race-neutral justification. That justification can sound in traditional redistricting criteria, or else can sound in politics and partisanship. As to the latter, the State need do nothing more than announce a partisan gerrymander."

 SCOTUS Ruling on LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS  by  Matt Vespa 

This case made Democrats nervous as it could virtually wipe them out in the South. It was also dragged out, with some alleging this was done to prevent states from redrawing their maps before the 2026 elections.

There were some wonky moments with this case, like when the NAACP legal team argued that white Democrats don’t vote for black candidates, which is patently false.