The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is gearing up to potentially reshape the Voting Rights Act in a way that could redraw the political map of the South, according to The Hill.
The crux of the matter is a rare reargument over Louisiana’s congressional districts, where the court is eyeing limits on Section 2, a key provision that ensures racial minorities have a fair shot at electing their preferred candidates.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act isn’t just legalese—it’s a shield against voting practices that sideline minority voices in politics.
But now, Republican-led states are pushing back hard, claiming the current rules force them to prioritize race in redistricting, which they argue is unconstitutional.
Their frustration with endless lawsuits is palpable, and they’re hoping the court agrees it’s time for a change.
Let’s rewind to the heart of this case: Louisiana’s congressional map. Lower courts previously ruled that the state’s setup, with just one majority-Black district, violated Section 2, prompting a redraw to include a second such district from Baton Rouge to Shreveport.
This isn’t the first time the court has tackled the Voting Rights Act. Back in 2013, they struck down a provision requiring certain jurisdictions to get federal approval before changing voting rules—a major blow to historical safeguards. That precedent looms large over the current debate.
Fast forward to a couple of years ago, when Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s liberal trio—Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—in a narrow 5-4 ruling to uphold Section 2 precedents in an Alabama redistricting case.
It was a surprise alignment, but reports suggest Roberts had to negotiate hard with Kavanaugh to secure that slim majority.
Now, with the Louisiana case getting a rare second round of arguments, it feels like the court is itching to address the bigger picture of Section 2’s future. The conservative justices are floating various ideas to limit its scope, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Listen to Justice Brett Kavanaugh on this: “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 a end point.” His words hint at a ticking clock on policies like Section 2, and frankly, it’s hard to argue against the idea that perpetual race-based fixes might overreach at some point.
Then there’s Chief Justice Roberts, who once remarked in a 2006 redistricting case, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” His distaste for racial categorizations in policy is clear as day, and it’s no stretch to think he’s looking for a way to dial back what he sees as divisive mandates.
One has to wonder if his 20-year milestone on the bench last month has him reflecting on a legacy of less government overreach.
If the court does restrict the use of race in creating majority-minority districts, the ripple effects could be seismic. The New York Times estimates over a dozen Democratic-held seats in the South might vanish, while Fair Fight Action, founded by Stacey Abrams, warns of up to 19 new safe Republican seats emerging. That’s a game-changer, and not just for party lines—it’s about who gets a voice.
Democrats aren’t sitting idly by, either. Rep. Jonathan Jackson of Illinois, alongside Rep. Ro Khanna of California, is pushing a constitutional amendment to counter any unfavorable ruling from the court. It’s a bold move, but one that smells of desperation when the judiciary seems poised to shift the ground beneath them.
The broader context here ties into other court decisions, like the recent invalidation of affirmative action in college admissions—a policy once endorsed but expected to sunset after 25 years. It’s a pattern: the court seems wary of endless race-conscious policies, and Section 2 might be next on the chopping block.
Republican-led states have a point when they grumble about being stuck in a litigation loop over redistricting. Constant court battles over maps distract from governance and, let’s be honest, can feel like a progressive agenda to lock in certain outcomes rather than trust the democratic process.
Yet, there’s a flip side—Section 2 exists for a reason, to protect against real historical wrongs in voting access. Striking it down or gutting it risks throwing out a necessary guardrail, especially in regions where disparities persist. The court’s challenge is threading that needle without tipping into overcorrection.