SCOTUS is about to hear a pivotal case that could fundamentally change voting rights as we know it, here in the United States. Louisiana v. Callais could overturn key constitutional provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). This case addresses whether Section Two of the VRA, which prohibits discriminatory voting practices against Black voters, remains relevant today. This costly legal struggle is the latest chapter of a decades long campaign to undermine civil rights that just recently entered its 160th year.
The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a historic victory in the fight for voting rights. It particularly enfranchised Black citizens who had historically been the victims of systemic discrimination at the ballot box. The preclearance process was perhaps the most vital piece. It required that jurisdictions with a proven record of voting discrimination receive federal approval before they were able to make any changes to voting laws or procedures. This mechanism was crucial to making sure changes didn’t violate the rights of minority voters.
The Louisiana legislature, despite these almost universal protections, just recently drew electoral maps that disenfranchised Black voters to a historic extreme. In a state where Black people make up roughly one-third of the state’s population, Black voters have endured much hardship. These maps still allow them to elect roughly one-sixth of the state’s representatives. This discrepancy has led to intense legal battles. These rulings, along with actions from several other courts, have employed Section Two of the VRA to invalidate legislative maps that fail to provide every Black voter their rights and opportunities.
As the Supreme Court prepares to address Louisiana v. Callais, the justices face a critical question: Is Section Two’s time up? Conservative justices have had an outsized impact on the Court’s decisions, especially against voting rights in recent years. Important names on this list are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh. Their views are sure to shape the reality of this important case and the future of the VRA.
Trump in 2016, and historically, the struggle in the fight for access to the ballot has been at the elite level of political strategy. During the Reagan administration, a young Samuel Alito and John Roberts were tasked with addressing issues related to apportionment and the VRA. Indeed, the landscape of voting rights changed as we know it. It was the Trump administration that took these conversations to the next level, arguing for even more radical concepts of voting rights.
The Roberts Court always acts to further conservative agenda within its decisions. This strategy has raised fears over the increasing executive branch authority to impose policies which some consider discriminatory by other means. For example, measures like the announcement of roving immigration patrols have backfired due to concerns about civil liberties violations.
President Richard Nixon’s administration played no small part in this decades-long discussion by taking the side of the states, opposing the reauthorization of the preclearance process. Nixon viewed it as unconstitutional and unjust to the former states of the Confederacy, characterizing it as an improper imposition of federal oversight. That sentiment was grave in 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down the entire preclearance provision as unconstitutional. Roberts had opposed Section 5 of the VRA, arguing that it gave the federal government excessive power over elections. This determination continues to serve as the bedrock for discussions on voting rights today.
Most recently, in 2023, Justice Kavanaugh made clear that Congress’s power to allow race-based redistricting cannot reach forever into the future. This assertion raises important questions about the longevity and applicability of protections designed to ensure equitable representation for marginalized communities.
As Louisiana v. Callais heads toward oral arguments, activists and legal experts on both sides of the contentious lawsuit are watching closely. As currently framed, this case could radically reshape how political representation works in the United States. It would further weaken the protections of the Voting Rights Act.
“Unless the constitution should restrain them, those states will all, I fear, keep up this discrimination and crush to death the hated freedmen.” – Justice Jackson