Voting Rights Act: Supreme Court Hears Louisiana Case

The Voting Rights Act sits at the center of a closely watched Supreme Court case that tests the limits of how far states may go when race and redistricting intersect. At issue is Louisiana’s congressional map and whether creating a second majority-Black district is a lawful remedy for vote dilution or an unconstitutional use of race.

The outcome will have far-reaching implications for how race is considered in election design. It could also redefine the reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which has long served as the primary safeguard against racially discriminatory voting practices. The ruling could recalibrate how Section 2 challenges work nationwide and shape minority representation ahead of the 2026 cycle.

History of the 1965 Voting Rights Act

Enacted in 1965, the Voting Rights Act outlawed devices such as literacy tests and empowered federal examiners and preclearance to dismantle structural barriers to voting. The law’s immediate impact was dramatic: hundreds of thousands of Black voters registered within months, and Congress later renewed and strengthened the statute multiple times. Central here, Section 2 bars voting practices that result in discrimination, even in the absence of proof of intent.

The Act was born out of the Civil Rights Movement, following the violence in Selma, Alabama, and the nationwide demand for equal access to the ballot. Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, it marked a turning point in American democracy by placing voting protections under federal oversight. Key provisions required states with histories of racial discrimination to obtain “preclearance” before changing voting procedures, ensuring that new rules would not disenfranchise minority voters.

The Court narrowed the Act in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) by disabling the preclearance coverage formula, reasoning that remedies must reflect “current conditions.” That decision shifted more enforcement weight onto Section 2 litigation (the very provision now under pressure) and left states with greater discretion to redraw districts and alter election laws without federal approval.

The Louisiana Case and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

After the 2020 census, Louisiana adopted a congressional map with just one majority-Black district out of six seats, despite Black residents comprising roughly one-third of the population. Black voters sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the map diluted their voting power, and they prevailed in the lower courts. The state legislature responded by drawing a second majority-Black district, but a group of white voters challenged it as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge panel agreed, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to revisit the fragile balance between race-conscious remedies and the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court’s decision to schedule new arguments could have far-reaching consequences beyond Louisiana. By reconsidering the boundaries of Section 2, the justices are essentially reexamining how race may be considered in ensuring fair representation. This move mirrors the approach taken in Citizens United, where a narrow challenge grew into a broad constitutional rewrite.

The conservative majority’s preference for a so-called “color-blind” interpretation of the Constitution suggests that the Court could further limit the use of race as a factor in redistricting. A ruling that narrows Section 2 could reduce the number of majority-minority or coalition districts nationwide, expand state discretion in drawing maps, and weaken one of the last major tools available to challenge discriminatory voting systems. For advocates of equal representation, this case represents a critical test of whether the Voting Rights Act will continue to ensure meaningful political participation for historically marginalized communities.

Impact of Potential Changes to the Voting Rights Act

For Black Louisianans, the stakes are immediate: losing the second majority-Black district would likely reduce their electoral influence in Congress. Communities across the country are watching closely, because Section 2 has been the principal tool to remedy vote dilution since Shelby County curtailed preclearance. Weakening it would shift more power to state legislatures and make federal courtroom relief harder to obtain.

Beyond Louisiana, the decision could influence redistricting battles in Texas, Georgia, and other states where demographic changes have increased competition for political representation. A narrower reading of Section 2 might limit the ability of courts to consider race when ensuring fair maps, effectively allowing minority voting strength to be diluted under the guise of neutrality.

Yet the Voting Rights Act remains a living statute grounded in the Fifteenth Amendment’s promise that race cannot be used to deny or abridge the right to vote. Born from the violence of Selma and the persistence of poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation, its history shows why Congress created strong federal backstops in the first place. However, the Court rules that historical foundation will continue to frame the debate over whether “current conditions” justify robust federal protections for voters today.

O’Malley & Madden, P.C. Advocates for Civil Rights

O’Malley & Madden represent people facing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and challenge government misconduct and First Amendment retaliation. We believe expanding, not contracting, meaningful access to the ballot and fair representation is essential to a healthy democracy.

As the Supreme Court weighs the Voting Rights Act, our team monitors developments and stands in solidarity with communities whose political power is at risk. If your civil rights have been threatened, contact the Chicago-based law firm of O’Malley & Madden, P.C. to discuss your options.