Supreme Court Limits Race in Redistricting; Southern States Revise Maps

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, limiting the use of race in congressional redistricting to cases where present-day intentional racial discrimination can be proven. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that considering race in district maps is only permissible when intentional discrimination regarding voting is demonstrated.

The decision rejected broader remedies for past and present racism in redistricting.

The ruling builds on prior cases, including the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which ended preclearance requirements for states with histories of discrimination. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, noting the decision largely ends certain voting-rights jurisprudence.

Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, stated that the majority's action renders Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act effectively a dead letter. She described it as the culmination of the demolition of the law. The Atlantic reported that the decision allows states to use partisan gerrymandering, which in the South often aligns with racial lines, as White voters typically support Republicans while Black voters back Democrats.

He had previously drawn a map creating a second Black-majority district to comply with earlier court orders, but that map was challenged as unlawfully considering race. Politico, as cited in The Atlantic, reported that GOP politicians in Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, and Mississippi publicly called for special sessions to revise maps.

The New York Times reported that two Southern governors on Friday announced they would summon lawmakers to consider new House maps, with Republicans aiming to dilute majority-Black districts before November's midterm elections.

The decision stems from a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map, where Black plaintiffs argued the Republican-drawn plan halved Black voting strength in a state where one-third of residents are Black. A separate Supreme Court oral argument this week saw Justice Samuel Alito question claims of racial bias in the Trump administration's termination of temporary protected status for Haitian migrants.

Fox News reported Alito pressed attorney Geoffrey Pipoly on how the policy targeted non-White immigrants, noting its application to migrants from various countries.

“Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter." — Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent (The Atlantic). The ruling could lead to fewer Black-majority districts in Southern states, altering representation in Congress. The Atlantic noted that many influential Black congresspeople represent districts created under Voting Rights Act supervision. Historical context includes the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which protected Black suffrage and addressed voter suppression in Southern states. The law's effects test, added in 1982, allowed challenges to maps resulting in racial dilution without proving intent.”