SCOTUS Undercuts Key Safeguard Against Racial Gerrymandering Before 2026 Midterms

In response to today’s Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais that weakened Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), Issue One Policy Director Michael McNulty issued the following statement:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling makes it easier for politicians to muzzle the voices of voters of color and redraw maps that protect themselves instead of reflecting voters’ choices. When incumbents can cherrypick their voters, the public’s voice gets weaker. This could affect millions of Americans in future elections and prevent them from having a genuine choice in who they vote for.

“This decision opens the door to racially discriminatory maps that are harder to challenge. Without a strong Section 2, politicians will be incentivized to draw maps that lock voters of color and candidates out of power, chipping away at one of democracy’s core tenets: equal representation under the law.

“The court’s ruling today narrowed one of the most powerful tools voters have to fight racial gerrymandering and underscores that courts alone cannot safeguard our democracy. With Section 2 weakened, the responsibility to protect fair representation now falls squarely on Congress.

“Lawmakers must act quickly to end gerrymandering by establishing clear national criteria for fair maps, requiring independent redistricting commissions in every state, and banning mid-decade redistricting. These proven, widely supported reforms would ensure voters — not politicians — choose their representatives.”

Background

In February, Issue One released an analysis on the impacts of the Louisiana v. Callais decision for both Louisiana and beyond. The challengers in Callais argued that Louisiana’s remedial map is unconstitutional on the basis that race was a predominant factor in drawing the district, arguing any consideration of race — even to remedy discrimination — violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s acceptance of this argument will dramatically narrow the ability of states to use race-conscious remedies to comply with federal voting rights law.

The court’s decision has weakened Section 2 of the VRA, which is the last major federal safeguard against voters of color vote dilution in redistricting — even in cases where the intent is partisan rather than explicitly racial.

With midterms fast approaching, this ruling risks triggering more last-minute partisan redistricting efforts in states with unified partisan control. However, these efforts would face significant legal and practical hurdles and, in most cases, would be unlikely to take effect before the 2026 elections. The more significant risk is that this ruling accelerates aggressive redistricting heading into 2028 and beyond, when states have more time and fewer procedural constraints to redraw maps.

Read the full paper, “How Louisiana v. Callais Could Impact Pre-Midterm Redistricting.”