The Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to minority voting protections Wednesday, ruling that states cannot consider race when redrawing congressional maps, even when doing so to comply with federal voting rights law. The 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, struck down Louisiana's newly drawn map that was specifically created to give Black voters greater representation.
Louisiana had redrawn its congressional districts in 2024 to include two majority-Black districts, up from one, in a state where roughly a third of the population is Black. A lower court had previously found the original map violated the Voting Rights Act. The Republican-controlled state legislature then modified it to provide minority voters additional electoral power. The Supreme Court's conservative majority found that effort unconstitutional.
Alito wrote that allowing race to factor into mapmaking "represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost any other context." He acknowledged only extreme situations might justify using race in redistricting, but Louisiana's scenario did not qualify.
The ruling represents the latest major step backward for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights legislation designed to combat racial discrimination in elections. The court has previously gutted key provisions of the law through decisions in 2013 and 2021. This decision further constrains how states can apply it.
Alito pointed to what he characterized as "social change" in the South and recent years' developments to justify the court's shift. He also cited the court's own 2019 ruling that opened the door to aggressive partisan gerrymandering. That decision creates a perverse dynamic: when voting rights advocates challenge maps that dilute minority power, states can now defend themselves by claiming they were maximizing partisan advantage rather than deliberately targeting racial groups. In Southern states particularly, party affiliation tracks closely with race, making that distinction hollow.
Justice Clarence Thomas, a longtime Voting Rights Act skeptic, went further in a separate opinion, suggesting the ruling should "largely put an end" to race-based districting altogether. The three liberal justices dissented sharply. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter" and warned the consequences would be "far-reaching and grave."
"Under the court's new view of Section 2, a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power," Kagan stated.
Civil rights organizations condemned the decision immediately. Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, said the ruling "betrayed Black voters, they betrayed America, and they betrayed our democracy," calling it a major setback that threatens to undermine decades of voting rights progress.
The case centers on a constitutional tension conservatives have long pressed: whether the Voting Rights Act conflicts with the 14th and 15th Amendments, which guaranteed voting rights following the Civil War. Conservatives argue those amendments require "colorblind" law enforcement, a position liberals reject as ignoring the persistent effects of historical discrimination.
Louisiana must now redraw its map again before its May 16 primary, just two weeks away. Other states face similar pressure, though timing is complicated by elections already underway ahead of the midterms in November. The court had previously assumed states could consider race when seeking to comply with voting rights protections. That assumption no longer holds.
The case itself took an unusual path to this outcome. The justices expanded its scope by scheduling a second round of oral arguments on the broader constitutional question, widening what began as a narrower legal dispute. Louisiana's government, initially defending its new map, switched sides and joined conservative plaintiffs challenging it. The Trump administration later supported that position.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "This decision reads like a conservative majority rewriting voting rights law from the bench while claiming fidelity to the Constitution, and the real-world consequence is clear: minority voters are about to lose meaningful electoral power across the South."
Comments