Supreme Court Rules 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais, Affirming Limits on Racial Gerrymandering Under Voting Rights Act

U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, affirming a federal district court decision that Louisiana's map with a second majority-Black district violated the Constitution.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, holding that the Voting Rights Act requires proof that a racial group was intentionally disadvantaged to establish a violation. The ruling narrowed the interpretation of Section 2 of the act, focusing on discriminatory intent rather than effect.

Governors of Alabama and Tennessee called special sessions of state lawmakers on Friday in response to the Supreme Court decision.

These sessions mark initial steps toward potentially redrawing congressional maps following the court's narrowing of the Voting Rights Act. Multiple sources confirmed the actions as part of a broader scramble among states to adjust districts. In the case, a federal district court in 2022 found that Louisiana likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by creating only one majority-Black electoral district in its map after the 2020 census.

Louisiana then created a second majority-Black district to comply with that finding. However, a three-judge federal district court later held that the new map with the second majority-Black district was a racial gerrymander violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, emphasizing that the Voting Rights Act, when properly interpreted, did not require the second district.

The decision drew on prior cases, including the court's 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, which established that federal courts will not hear constitutional challenges to partisan gerrymandering. It also referenced the 2013 decision that eviscerated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to address racial discrimination in voting. It amended Section 2 of the act in 1982 to prohibit electoral rules resulting in denial or abridgement of voting rights on account of race, based on the totality of circumstances. The Supreme Court had interpreted Section 2 in 1980's Mobile v.

Bolden to require discriminatory purpose, prompting the congressional amendment. In 1986, the Supreme Court decided Thornburg v. Gingles, establishing preconditions for Section 2 claims related to vote dilution.

The court in 2021 required Section 2 plaintiffs to focus on discriminatory intent rather than effect in challenges to voting burdens. These precedents informed the Callais decision, which resolved tensions between avoiding Voting Rights Act violations and constitutional prohibitions on racial gerrymandering.

Shannon disagreed with former President Obama on the Supreme Court's racial redistricting ruling, saying race should not be a deciding factor in drawing districts. Shannon's statement highlighted differing views on the role of race in electoral mapping.

The ruling has prompted states like Alabama and Tennessee to convene lawmakers, potentially leading to revised maps without additional majority-minority districts.