At the end of April, the Supreme Court issued a major ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that effectively invalidates the Voting Rights Act, a landmark law designed to protect against racial discrimination in voting.
Background: How did we get to this lawsuit?
Our story starts in Louisiana. After the 2020 Census, Louisiana adopted a congressional map with only one majority-Black district out of six, despite Black residents making up about one-third of the population. Black voters and civil rights groups sued, arguing the map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power, and they ultimately prevailed. To avoid further legal intervention, the state enacted a new map in 2024 (SB 8) creating two majority-Black districts. That map was then challenged in Callais by a group of “non-African American” voters, and in a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with their claim that SB 8 unconstitutionally classified voters based on race.
What has changed about the Voting Rights Act?
In Callais, the Supreme Court said that using race as a basis for redistricting to follow the Voting Rights Act conflicts with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Moving forward, it will not be enough for voters to show that a congressional or other map has racist effects. They will have to show evidence of intentional discrimination.
The problem? This decision authored by Justice Alito has raised the burden of proof for plaintiffs such that unless lawmakers make explicitly racist remarks or otherwise show their motivations are racial discrimination, succeeding with race-based voter discrimination claims will be almost impossible.
Make the Supreme Court Great Again
The Supreme Court has tried to rewrite the Voting Rights Act before to require proof of intentional discrimination, in City of Mobile v. Bolden in 1980. In response, Congress, with bipartisan support, rejected that standard and said discriminatory effects were enough. Now the Court has brought back the intent requirement, overriding Congress, because the Court claims the Constitution requires this. That means that any future law Congress passes to restore the Voting Rights Act will run into the same problem, unless the Supreme Court’s majority changes.
Up until the Callais ruling, Section 2 was the last remaining gemstone in the “crown jewel” that is the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court struck down Section 5 in a 2013 ruling Shelby County v. Holder. Section 5 had required certain state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get permission from the federal government before changing rules that affect the right to vote or the election process.
Comments
Post a Comment