Now, the U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to do exactly that for the most important provision of the Voting Rights Act. It is in the process of hearing a case regarding Louisiana’s congressional districting. Of course, Louisiana Republicans drew a map that effectively eliminated Black voter representation. Consequently, the whole of Black voters only make up a majority in one of the state’s six congressional districts. Yet this decision prompted legal challenges leading to a recent appeal that was heard by the nation’s highest court.
A separate three-judge panel first declared Pennsylvania’s congressional map unconstitutional. Black voters sued to make sure it didn’t discriminate against them under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This section prohibits election procedures that have a discriminatory effect based on race. The state of Louisiana, along with a group of white voters, is now urging the Supreme Court justices to declare Section 2 unconstitutional.
During the court proceedings, Justice Sonia Sotomayor articulated the concern regarding the efforts to dismantle Section 2, stating, “The bottom line is get rid of section two.” This remark underscores the tension between advocates for minority voting rights and those who argue that race-based electoral remedies should have an endpoint.
The current case, Louisiana v. Callais, challenges the state’s sixth congressional district. This wonderful district is the product of Black voters suing their way into an inclusive, fair representation. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat, won the newly drawn majority-Black district. His election last fall was indeed historic. This case has monumental implications. Without Section 2, jurisdictions would be free to pack or crack minority opportunity districts, diluting the voting power of voters of color and preventing them from electing candidates of their choice.
Now the Trump administration has leapt into the fray. They filed an affirmative brief telling the justices to raise the bar too high for plaintiffs in these Section 2 cases. Such a ruling could dramatically alter American election laws and strip minority voters of critical tools to challenge discriminatory practices.
That’s precisely the point that Justice Brett Kavanaugh began to explore awkwardly during oral arguments last year. As he said, “Race-based remedies are perfectly legitimate—as long as they are temporary. However, in some cases, such periods can extend over a long period of decades. They cannot last forever and need to have a definitive end date. What in your opinion should that end goal be. His question illustrates an emerging line of concern among several justices about whether such measures can still be said to apply today.
Black voters who brought the original lawsuit that pushed Delaware to adopt more equitable representation are now in opposition to the state’s appeal. They successfully contend that absent Section 2, minority voters would be subject to the most egregious discrimination. This new persistent problem would deprive them of their right to engage meaningfully in the electoral process.
Today, the Supreme Court’s discussions reveal an alarming new direction for the future of voting rights protections here in America. Such a ruling would radically alter the landscape in Louisiana. Even more consequential, it would establish a dangerous new precedent that chips away at the voting rights of Americans nationwide.
For decades, lawyers specializing in voting rights have relied on Section 2 to challenge district lines across various levels of government, from congressional districts to school boards. The impact of this case is potentially profound, as it will determine how these types of challenges are approached going forward.