Because your vote counts

The Demise of the Voting Rights Act

The Demise of the Voting Rights Act

The Erosion of Our Democracy

The Supreme Court has completed its trifecta in eviscerating the Voting Right Act. Its latest decision, Louisiana v. Callais, neuters Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by requiring nearly impossible proof that a state’s elimination of a majority-minority district was motivated by race. This decision, rather than upholding the VRA’s goal of enabling minority voters to elect their preferred candidate, allows partisan gerrymandering regardless of how much it diminishes the voting influence of minorities. It will have profound implications for future elections. 

The VRA was enacted after decades of systematic efforts to deny Blacks in the south the right to vote through violence, intimidation, poll taxes, and impossible “literacy” exams. And while the Act had its weaknesses, it achieved its purpose. Black voter turnout in Mississippi, for example, increased from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in 1969.

 

The Road to Judicial Repeal

 

The Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed conservative majority began its attack on the VRA in 2013 when it struck down Section 4, which provided a formula to determine which states were required to obtain “pre-clearance” by the Department of Justice or the D.C. district court before changing their voting laws and practices. The Court said the “coverage formula” used by the DOJ to determine which states were required to comply was based on 40-year-old data which they said was too old and thus theoretically violated the affected states’ rights to equal sovereignty.

Then, six years later, in 2019, the Supreme Court declined to rule on a Republican congressional gerrymander in North Carolina and a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said that excessively partisan gerrymanders were “incompatible with democratic principles,” but could not be struck down by the federal courts because they presented “nonjusticiable political questions.”   

 

And now, in 2026, the Court has doubled down on its view that partisan gerrymandering is perfectly acceptable, unless the plaintiff can prove that the state was motivated by racial animus, even when the gerrymander dilutes the voting power of a racial minority. They concluded that the creation of a majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Further, they held that the VRA does not require states to create majority-minority districts and there is no compelling interest to justify race as a basis for redistricting.  

 

So, over the course of 12 years, the Supreme Court has de-fanged a statute enacted by the people’s representatives, upheld by the courts for half a century, and faithfully administered by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.  The Constitution didn’t change over that period, only the composition of the Court. 

 

What Are the Practical Implications of the Callais Decision?

 

Callais and the prior two VRA cases have created a new legal framework for evaluating state reapportionment decisions, one which will increase political polarization and decrease the political power of minority groups in this country. State legislatures, dominated by one party or the other, will seek to redraw Congressional district boundaries to either include or exclude voters who favor or oppose their perspectives, and those boundaries can be unabashedly political and discriminatory.

Thus, on March 24, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court was able to uphold a new congressional map approved by the Republican state legislature that split up and eliminated the Kansas City-based congressional seat now held by Representative Emanuel Cleaver. Cleaver is Black and a Democrat. (There is an effort to hold a referendum on the reapportionment plan in the November 2026 election). If the new boundaries hold, it likely will leave a Congressional delegation of seven Republicans and one Democrat in a state where Republican registration is 49%. 

This is the type of exclusionary gerrymandering that will become far more commonplace and nearly impossible to challenge.

 

What Does It Mean for This Election and Beyond?

 

For 2026, commentators originally thought that the effects of Callais would be limited. After all, 15 states will hold primaries by May 19, early voting will have begun in 23 states by that date, and 38 states will hold primaries by the end of June. And in every state, campaigns are underway that assume existing district lines will be in effect all year. It was thought that this last minute scrambling of voting districts, just weeks before primaries, would cause voter confusion and further eroding public confidence in the electoral process. Not so.

 

Florida has already altered its congressional districts in response to the Callais decision. Missouri has done the same, and shockingly, Louisiana is delaying its May 16 primary to change a Black member’s district into a white majority district. Postponing an election for partisan purposes – here in the United States! 

Other states may act as well. Republicans in Tennessee and Alabama are in the process of drawing a new map. Legislators may do the same in South Carolina and Mississippi. All of these actions are calculated to add Republican seats that are currently held by minority members. Ironically, the reapportionment plan in Virginia, which would have benefitted Democrats, was found to have violated the laws of that state.

 

Over the next two years, we can anticipate more gerrymandering not just in Red states, but in Blue states as well, in a race to the bottom. Many voters, especially minority voters, will be effectively disenfranchised by these actions. We have truly migrated to a system where the voters don’t pick their representatives, but where the representatives pick their voters. And significantly, we will also lose the talents of minority Representatives who bring diverse perspectives to the policy-making process who may have a harder time being elected from gerrymandered districts. 

So, what is to be done now? The main thing is to elect as many Democrats as possible to the House. A weaker Trump is less able to continue to pressure state GOP lawmakers into partisan gerrymandering. And we must do everything we can to flip the Senate so that Trump cannot appoint additional extremist judges. Gerrymandering does not affect statewide elections.

 

The VRA was part of a great period of legislative reform during the 89th Congress in 1965-1966 under the leadership of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. After so many years of legislative effort to enable our diverse population to be fairly represented in Congress, the evisceration of the VRA is indeed a giant step backwards.

The Erosion of Our Democracy

The Supreme Court has completed its trifecta in eviscerating the Voting Right Act. Its latest decision, Louisiana v. Callais, neuters Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by requiring nearly impossible proof that a state’s elimination of a majority-minority district was motivated by race. This decision, rather than upholding the VRA’s goal of enabling minority voters to elect their preferred candidate, allows partisan gerrymandering regardless of how much it diminishes the voting influence of minorities. It will have profound implications for future elections.

The VRA was enacted after decades of systematic efforts to deny Blacks in the south the right to vote through violence, intimidation, poll taxes, and impossible “literacy” exams. And while the Act had its weaknesses, it achieved its purpose. Black voter turnout in Mississippi, for example, increased from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in 1969.

The Road to Judicial Repeal

The Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed conservative majority began its attack on the VRA in 2013 when it struck down Section 4, which provided a formula to determine which states were required to obtain “pre-clearance” by the Department of Justice or the D.C. district court before changing their voting laws and practices. The Court said the “coverage formula” used by the DOJ to determine which states were required to comply was based on 40-year-old data which they said was too old and thus theoretically violated the affected states’ rights to equal sovereignty.

Then, six years later, in 2019, the Supreme Court declined to rule on a Republican congressional gerrymander in North Carolina and a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said that excessively partisan gerrymanders were “incompatible with democratic principles,” but could not be struck down by the federal courts because they presented “nonjusticiable political questions.”

And now, in 2026, the Court has doubled down on its view that partisan gerrymandering is perfectly acceptable, unless the plaintiff can prove that the state was motivated by racial animus, even when the gerrymander dilutes the voting power of a racial minority. They concluded that the creation of a majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Further, they held that the VRA does not require states to create majority-minority districts and there is no compelling interest to justify race as a basis for redistricting.

So, over the course of 12 years, the Supreme Court has de-fanged a statute enacted by the people’s representatives, upheld by the courts for half a century, and faithfully administered by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.  The Constitution didn’t change over that period, only the composition of the Court.

 

What Are the Practical Implications of the Callais Decision?

Callais and the prior two VRA cases have created a new legal framework for evaluating state reapportionment decisions, one which will increase political polarization and decrease the political power of minority groups in this country. State legislatures, dominated by one party or the other, will seek to redraw Congressional district boundaries to either include or exclude voters who favor or oppose their perspectives, and those boundaries can be unabashedly political and discriminatory.

Thus, on March 24, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court was able to uphold a new congressional map approved by the Republican state legislature that split up and eliminated the Kansas City-based congressional seat now held by Representative Emanuel Cleaver. Cleaver is Black and a Democrat. (There is an effort to hold a referendum on the reapportionment plan in the November 2026 election). If the new boundaries hold, it likely will leave a Congressional delegation of seven Republicans and one Democrat in a state where Republican registration is 49%.

This is the type of exclusionary gerrymandering that will become far more commonplace and nearly impossible to challenge.

What Does It Mean for This Election and Beyond?

For 2026, commentators originally thought that the effects of Callais would be limited. After all, 15 states will hold primaries by May 19, early voting will have begun in 23 states by that date, and 38 states will hold primaries by the end of June. And in every state, campaigns are underway that assume existing district lines will be in effect all year. It was thought that this last minute scrambling of voting districts, just weeks before primaries, would cause voter confusion and further eroding public confidence in the electoral process. Not so.

Florida has already altered its congressional districts in response to the Callais decision. Missouri has done the same, and shockingly, Louisiana is delaying its May 16 primary to change a Black member’s district into a white majority district. Postponing an election for partisan purposes – here in the United States!

Other states may act as well. Republicans in Tennessee and Alabama are in the process of drawing a new map. Legislators may do the same in South Carolina and Mississippi. All of these actions are calculated to add Republican seats that are currently held by minority members. Ironically, the reapportionment plan in Virginia, which would have benefitted Democrats, was found to have violated the laws of that state.

Over the next two years, we can anticipate more gerrymandering not just in Red states, but in Blue states as well, in a race to the bottom. Many voters, especially minority voters, will be effectively disenfranchised by these actions. We have truly migrated to a system where the voters don’t pick their representatives, but where the representatives pick their voters. And significantly, we will also lose the talents of minority Representatives who bring diverse perspectives to the policy-making process who may have a harder time being elected from gerrymandered districts.

So, what is to be done now? The main thing is to elect as many Democrats as possible to the House. A weaker Trump is less able to continue to pressure state GOP lawmakers into partisan gerrymandering. And we must do everything we can to flip the Senate so that Trump cannot appoint additional extremist judges. Gerrymandering does not affect statewide elections.

The VRA was part of a great period of legislative reform during the 89th Congress in 1965-1966 under the leadership of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. After so many years of legislative effort to enable our diverse population to be fairly represented in Congress, the evisceration of the VRA is indeed a giant step backwards.

 

Top