A major pillar of the Voting Rights Act that aims to prevent racial discrimination during the redistricting process is in the hands of the Supreme Court in a case that could reshape voting representation across the country. On Wednesday, the justices heard arguments in a Republican-led challenge to the civil-rights-era law. The case centers on a years-long legal battle over Louisiana’s Congressional maps. A lower court found an older version of the map illegally diluted Black voting power, prompting a revision that included a second majority-minority district. The question before the high court now is whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-Black district violates the Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments. “The Constitution does not tolerate this system of government-mandated racial balancing,” argued Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga.Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, said rolling back Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would “throw maps across the country into chaos” and hurt minority representation. “It is an intervention that has been crucial to diversifying leadership and providing an ability for minority voters to have an equal opportunity to participate in the process,” Nelson said. Nelson argued that the limited consideration of race to remedy identified discrimination is legal, but conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether race-based remedies should be allowed indefinitely. “This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint,” Kavanaugh said.There was also significant discussion around what the standard should be for striking down state maps, and whether racial discrimination needs to be intentional. Liberal justices seemed wary of setting a higher bar. “I don’t understand why it matters whether or not the state intended to do that. What Congress is saying is, if it is happening, which Section 2 gives us the tools to determine, you’ve got to fix it,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. The conservative-leaning bench is expected to decide the case by the end of its term, which is currently scheduled to wrap up in June. An earlier ruling in Louisiana’s favor could potentially allow states to revise their maps last-minute, with fewer guardrails, before the 2026 midterm elections. If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, some fear Democrats will lose seats in Congress, making it more difficult for the party to take back power. Majority-Black and Latino districts have historically supported Democratic candidates. It comes as President Donald Trump has been pressuring Republican-led states to revise district maps to give GOP candidates an edge in next year’s elections.
WASHINGTON —
A major pillar of the Voting Rights Act that aims to prevent racial discrimination during the redistricting process is in the hands of the Supreme Court in a case that could reshape voting representation across the country.
On Wednesday, the justices heard arguments in a Republican-led challenge to the civil-rights-era law.
The case centers on a years-long legal battle over Louisiana’s Congressional maps.
A lower court found an older version of the map illegally diluted Black voting power, prompting a revision that included a second majority-minority district. The question before the high court now is whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-Black district violates the Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments.
“The Constitution does not tolerate this system of government-mandated racial balancing,” argued Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga.
Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, said rolling back Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would “throw maps across the country into chaos” and hurt minority representation.
“It is an intervention that has been crucial to diversifying leadership and providing an ability for minority voters to have an equal opportunity to participate in the process,” Nelson said.
Nelson argued that the limited consideration of race to remedy identified discrimination is legal, but conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether race-based remedies should be allowed indefinitely.
“This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint,” Kavanaugh said.
There was also significant discussion around what the standard should be for striking down state maps, and whether racial discrimination needs to be intentional. Liberal justices seemed wary of setting a higher bar.
“I don’t understand why it matters whether or not the state intended to do that. What Congress is saying is, if it is happening, which Section 2 gives us the tools to determine, you’ve got to fix it,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.
The conservative-leaning bench is expected to decide the case by the end of its term, which is currently scheduled to wrap up in June.
An earlier ruling in Louisiana’s favor could potentially allow states to revise their maps last-minute, with fewer guardrails, before the 2026 midterm elections.
If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, some fear Democrats will lose seats in Congress, making it more difficult for the party to take back power. Majority-Black and Latino districts have historically supported Democratic candidates.
It comes as President Donald Trump has been pressuring Republican-led states to revise district maps to give GOP candidates an edge in next year’s elections.
