Supreme Court Weakens Voting Rights Act in 6-3 Louisiana Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority delivered another blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on Wednesday, issuing a 6–3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that critics say twisted the law to fit a predetermined outcome. The decision disregards the historical context of the post-Civil War Amendments and Congress’s bipartisan intent behind the landmark 1965 legislation.

Legal experts warn the ruling may not be the final chapter in the Court’s dismantling of protections against racial injustice in voting rights. The case originated from Louisiana’s redrawing of congressional districts after the 2020 census, which resulted in only one majority-minority district despite Black residents comprising over 30% of the state’s population. A majority-minority district is one where racial or ethnic minorities constitute more than half the population, increasing the likelihood of electing representatives who reflect their interests.

Black voters filed a lawsuit arguing that splitting their community—known as “cracking” in redistricting terms—diluted their electoral influence. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the issue:

A minority community that is cohesive in its geography and politics alike, and that faces continued adversity from racial division, is split—“cracked” is the usual term—so that it loses all its electoral influence. Members of the racial minority can still go to the polls and cast a ballot. But given the State’s racially polarized voting, they cannot hope—in the way the State’s White citizens can—to elect a person whom they think will well represent their interests. Their votes matter less than others’ do; they translate into less political voice.

The plaintiffs initially prevailed in the lower court. In response, the Louisiana legislature revised the congressional redistricting map in January 2024 via Senate Bill 8, creating a second majority-minority district. A group of self-described “non-Black voter[s]” in Louisiana then sued, arguing that the new district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The lower court rejected this claim, prompting the state to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court first considered the case last year before narrowing its scope and issuing the final ruling on Wednesday.

Historical Context: From Plessy v. Ferguson to Callais

To understand the implications of the Court’s decision in Callais, it is essential to revisit the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson, in which a different Supreme Court majority upheld racial segregation under the doctrine of “separate but equal.” The case stemmed from the arrest of Homer Plessy, a Black man who was detained for sitting in a whites-only train car in Louisiana, violating state law. Plessy sued under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was only 28 years old at the time. The Fourteenth Amendment, along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, was designed to affirm the humanity and rights of formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.