The landmark 1965 federal law known as the Voting Rights Act was enacted to enforce the 15th Amendment by prohibiting racial discrimination in voting. After nearly 60 years, however, the Supreme Court has substantially diluted the law. In its April 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court considered questions regarding the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
According to the Department of Justice, Section 2 is “a permanent, nationwide provision that prohibits state and local governments from imposing any voting practice, standard or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color or language minority status.”
Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana legislature drew a congressional voting map with only one majority-Black district. Black voters challenged the map in Robinson v. Ardoin, claiming that the new districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they effectively diluted the Black voting bloc.
In 2022, a federal district court ruled that the 2020 map violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district. Soon after the revised 2024 map complying with Robinson was approved, a group identifying itself as “non-African American voters” challenged the map on the grounds that race had been the leading factor in its creation. They argued that the district constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
Louisiana v. Callais was initially decided by a three-judge panel in the Western District Court of Louisiana. The panel agreed and struck down the map, ordering that a new one be drawn. In July 2024, the state of Louisiana appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered whether a state may intentionally consider race when creating a majority-minority district in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, as Louisiana had done when creating its second majority-Black district.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision striking down the 2024 voting map. In doing so, a six-justice majority held that the Constitution rarely permits race-based distinctions and that the Voting Rights Act could not be interpreted to require the creation of a second majority-minority district.
The ruling marked the latest in a series of Supreme Court opinions narrowing the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Critics of the decision, including the dissenting justices, argue that Callais will make it easier for legislatures to disenfranchise minority voters or conceal discriminatory intent behind redistricting decisions. Many civil rights groups are now calling upon Congress to address Callais through amendments to the Voting Rights Act.
Daniel Fernandez ’28 remarked, “I would not support Congress amending the Voting Rights Act. It feels like a one-way street to destroying all of the progress that has been made.”
Either way, the decision has already had a major impact on the political landscape ahead of the midterm elections, where several states have begun revisiting district maps in attempts to gain additional congressional seats.
