The Supreme Court on Wednesday further dismantled the Voting Rights Act, making it significantly harder for voters of color to challenge redistricting plans that dilute their political power. This decision, in the case of Louisiana’s congressional plan, struck down a map that had created a second majority-minority district, deeming it an unconstitutional use of race. The ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, will reshape political representation across all levels of government, with major changes expected to begin in earnest in 2028.
The decision directly benefits Republican-controlled legislatures, enabling them to eliminate Democratic-held seats, particularly across the South, to cement their hold on the U.S. House. In Louisiana, the state at the center of the case, the high court invalidated a map that had established a Black-majority district currently held by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields. Republican officials in Louisiana, including Attorney General Liz Murrill and Gov. Jeff Landry, have not yet detailed their response, though Murrill stated she would work on a “constitutionally compliant map.” Any redrawing would disrupt the state’s May 16 primary, with early voting slated to start Saturday and overseas and military ballots already dispatched. Fields and other Democrats argued it was already too late to draw new lines.
The State's Hand in Electoral Control
Justice Alito’s opinion returns the case to a lower court for further proceedings but offers no instructions on whether the current map should be withdrawn for the upcoming midterms. The opinion notably omitted any mention of the legal doctrine known as Purcell, which advises courts against issuing rulings that could cause voter chaos close to an election. Adam Kincaid, president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, indicated Louisiana "very likely could do it" regarding redrawing lines. Other states, such as Tennessee, which holds its primary August 6, could also move quickly. U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn urged Tennessee lawmakers to draw another Republican seat, likely targeting the state’s sole Democrat in the House, Rep. Steve Cohen.
The ruling also provided a legal advantage to Florida lawmakers, who on the same day approved new congressional boundaries devised by GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis. These boundaries aim to secure 24 of the state’s 28 U.S. House seats for Republicans this fall. DeSantis’s legal team had cited the looming voting rights decision as justification for mid-decade redistricting, and the ruling was distributed to state Senate members as they prepared to vote.
Eroding the Right to Representation
The court’s decision effectively mandates evidence of a discriminatory motive for successful Voting Rights Act challenges. Alito wrote that VRA plaintiffs could only succeed "when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred." While stopping short of requiring a "finding of intentional discrimination," the court significantly narrowed the types of evidence plaintiffs can use, demanding a focus on "current" conditions. Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, stated the ruling will make VRA redistricting cases "all but impossible to win." Jason Torchinsky, an elections lawyer representing Republicans, noted that intentional discrimination cases are "much rarer than they used to be," requiring "some sort of smoking gun evidence" like an email explicitly detailing the carving up of a neighborhood.
This ruling elevates the role of partisan gerrymandering, following a 2019 Supreme Court decision from the seventh year prior that federal courts could not police such practices. Alito’s opinion, alongside a racial gerrymandering case from the second year prior, suggests that minority voters can only succeed in Voting Rights Act cases if they propose maps that protect the partisan advantage a legislature seeks. Plaintiffs must now show it is possible to draw a majority-minority district while meeting all other legislative goals, including boosting one party, and demonstrate that a minority group votes as a bloc distinct from party affiliation. Hilary Harris Klein, senior counsel for voting rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, observed that "In a two-party system, racial divides often mirror the partisan divide," adding that when "partisan objectives really amount to silencing Black and brown communities, the result is the same." She accused the Supreme Court of "allowing states to whitewash the dilution of minority voting strength."
What Capital Did Next
The decision adopted arguments made by Alabama in a separate redistricting case decided three years ago, arguments that two court conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, had previously rejected but now support without explanation. Roberts, who wrote the 2023 opinion in Allen v. Milligan from the third year prior upholding a longstanding interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, did not write a concurrence in Wednesday’s Louisiana case to explain why he changed his views or how he squared the new ruling with the last one. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined Roberts and the three liberals in the Alabama case, also did not explain his change in position.
While practical and legal obstacles will limit the ruling's effects for the 2026 elections, it is expected to produce major changes for legislative maps used in 2028 and be highly influential after the 2030 census. Republican-controlled states, including Southern states like Georgia and South Carolina, Ohio, and states with tribal populations, may review and redraw majority-minority districts they were previously compelled to create under the Voting Rights Act. Rick Jackson, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, called for redistricting to be added to an expected special session. Democratic states, despite inclinations to preserve current plans, may face lawsuits arguing their plans violate Wednesday’s opinion regarding the use of race. Illinois and California’s plans could be vulnerable, though California’s partisan-driven map might be protected by the ruling's emphasis on partisan reasons.
Democratic redistricting strategists anticipate "counter-offensives" in the coming years in states like New York, Colorado, and Washington to draw maps that swing more U.S. House seats to Democrats. One Republican involved in redistricting efforts predicted that 70 seats could be redrawn by the end of the 2028 election, further entrenching the political power of the dominant class factions.