politics
Supreme Court Rules on Race in Congressional Redistricting
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that race can only be considered in drawing congressional districts if present-day intentional racial discrimination is proven. The decision rejected efforts to remedy past racism in redistricting, prompting states to redraw maps and delay primaries.
The GuardianAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais that the Voting Rights Act permits consideration of race in redistricting only to remedy proven intentional discrimination in voting practices. " The decision reversed a lower court order that had required Louisiana to redraw its congressional map to include a second majority-Black district.
The ruling cited the Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula for certain states, noting that "things have changed dramatically" since the law's enactment in 1965.
The case originated from a challenge by Black voters in Robinson v. Landry, who argued that Louisiana's initial congressional map, with one majority-Black district out of six despite Black residents comprising about one-third of the population, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
A federal district court agreed and ordered a new map with a second majority-Black district connecting areas from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. Non-Black voters then filed suit in Callais, claiming the revised map constituted an impermissible racial gerrymander.
Justice Alito's opinion emphasized that Section 2 "does not authorize courts to redraw districts solely to achieve proportional representation based on race," and referenced the 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, which held that federal courts cannot review claims of partisan gerrymandering absent racial discrimination.
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred separately, describing the Court's prior Voting Rights Act jurisprudence as a "disastrous misadventure" that should now end. Dissenting, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority's decision "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter," arguing it completes the "demolition" of the Voting Rights Act begun in Shelby County.
The dissent highlighted ongoing racial polarization in Southern voting, where Black voters predominantly support Democrats and white voters support Republicans.
