The Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of American democracy for six decades, stands once again before the U.S. Supreme Court — this time facing one of its most consequential tests yet.
On Wednesday, the justices will hear a Republican-backed challenge centered on Louisiana’s congressional map, a case that could dramatically weaken protections designed to shield minority voters from discrimination.
At the heart of the dispute is a redistricting map that increased Louisiana’s Black-majority congressional districts from one to two — a reflection, supporters said, of the state’s demographics, where Black residents make up nearly a third of the population. But opponents claimed the change went too far, arguing it violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee by prioritizing race.
The justices’ decision could reverberate far beyond Louisiana. If the court curtails Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the provision that bars voting practices that diminish minority voting power — experts warn it could trigger a nationwide shift in electoral maps, potentially erasing minority-opportunity districts across Republican-led states.
“States with unified Republican governments would likely try to eliminate most or all of their minority-opportunity districts,” observed Harvard Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, who has urged the court to preserve the law’s integrity.
Currently, Section 2 serves as the Voting Rights Act’s main defense mechanism after the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling stripped away another major safeguard that required federal approval for voting law changes in states with histories of racial discrimination.
The stakes are enormous: Democratic-affiliated analysts estimate that a ruling against Section 2 could give Republicans up to 19 additional House seats and reduce minority representation in Congress.
A Map, A Lawsuit, and a Divided Court
After the 2020 census, Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature initially approved a map with only one Black-majority district out of six. A federal judge later found this violated Section 2, prompting the legislature to draw a new map adding a second Black-majority seat.
That revision, however, sparked a new lawsuit from a dozen white voters who claimed their own influence had been unfairly reduced. In April, a three-judge panel sided with them, ruling that race had been overemphasized in the redistricting process — a decision now under appeal to the Supreme Court.
Louisiana’s attorney general, Elizabeth Murrill, has taken a firm stance: “Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution,” she told the court, calling for an end to any consideration of race in drawing political boundaries.
The case marks the second time this year the justices will hear arguments on the Louisiana map. After sidestepping a decision in June, the court ordered a fresh round of hearings — a sign, legal observers say, of the deep divisions within the bench.
The Battle Over “Color-Blind” Equality
Legal scholars say the Louisiana challenge aligns with a broader conservative movement pushing for a “color-blind” interpretation of the Constitution. The same philosophy underpinned the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
“This case represents a fundamental shift,” said law professor Steve Schwinn of the University of Illinois Chicago. “The court seems to be moving from a remedial understanding of race — acknowledging past harms — to one that treats race as something to be ignored entirely.”
That shift could hinge on one man: Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He sided with the court’s liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts in a 2023 Alabama redistricting case that upheld Section 2, but his concurring opinion hinted at limits to race-based remedies.
“The conventional wisdom,” Stephanopoulos noted, “is that Kavanaugh is the deciding vote.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected by June — a decision that could redefine the nation’s most enduring law on racial equality in voting, and with it, reshape the balance of power in Congress for years to come.
