Source: Democracy Docket
Introduction
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, voting rights advocates are bracing for what could be a devastating blow to democracy. At risk: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the key federal protection against racial discrimination in voting.
“This is it. I would bet my left arm that they will tell us that Section 2 is in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.”
— Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Indiana University Bloomington
Why This Case Matters
A decision to strike down or weaken Section 2 would devastate the most effective civil rights law in U.S. history—giving states a free hand to draw political maps that dilute minority voting power. The repercussions could last a generation:
- Republicans could gain a lasting House majority, potentially by locking in as many as 27 new safe seats.
- Minority voices could be all but erased from representation in Congress.
The Background
- The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave teeth to the 15th Amendment: No one can be denied the right to vote because of race.
- Section 2 bans racially discriminatory voting laws and maps, whether the intent is proven or not.
- For decades, Section 2 empowered challenges to gerrymanders and laws that limit minority voting power.
Now, Supreme Court conservatives are considering whether the VRA itself violates the Constitution it was designed to enforce.
The Right’s Long Campaign Against the VRA
- In 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts led the Court in gutting the VRA’s “preclearance” provision (Shelby County v. Holder), unleashing a wave of new voting restrictions and subtle barriers.
- Roberts’ skepticism is longstanding: he fought Section 2 even as a DOJ staffer in 1982.
Section 2 in Action
- After Louisiana’s 2022 district map crammed Black voters (one-third of the population) into just one out of six seats, a court ordered the creation of two majority-Black districts.
- Conservative activists responded by suing, claiming the new fairer map itself was unconstitutional.
Why the Stakes Are So High
The Supreme Court has long recognized legislatures can consider race to fix past discrimination in voting maps. Recent signals from Justices—especially Brett Kavanaugh—suggest the Court may now declare that “racism isn’t the problem it once was” and protections are no longer justified.
With Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts signaling openness to these arguments, the future of federal voting rights hangs in the balance.
Racing to the Right
The Roberts Court hasn’t just limited voting rights:
- Banned affirmative action in college admissions
- Limited school integration
- Claimed “the way to stop discrimination on race is to stop discriminating on race.” (Roberts, 2007)
“This Supreme Court has, frankly, a hostility to recognizing that race plays a central role… we are not yet a race-blind society.”
— John C. Yang, Asian Americans Advancing Justice
Yet the Court has accepted race as a factor in other policing and law enforcement contexts.
The Last Levee Protecting Voting Rights
In 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court said partisan gerrymandering is a political issue federal courts cannot resolve. That left Section 2 as the last real protection against racial gerrymandering.
If Section 2 is gutted, analysts project Republicans could draw up to 27 more safe House seats—wiping out minority Democratic districts nationwide.
“The whole notion of the Voting Rights Act was to enfranchise millions of voters that… have been disenfranchised… we could see this resulting in vulnerable communities, typically communities of color, being disenfranchised again.“
— John C. Yang
What Happens Next?
There is a slim possibility that Roberts and Kavanaugh could side with liberal justices to preserve the VRA, as happened unexpectedly in 2023’s Milligan decision.
But the Court’s legitimacy has taken a beating, and many expect a more technical or indirect gutting of Section 2—“interpreting” it so strictly that civil rights lawyers can’t win.
“Given how high profile it would be for the Court to strike down Section 2… there’s a far more likely path: interpret Section 2 so it has no power.”
— Rick Hasen, UCLA Law
Other Threats
- Is there even a right for private citizens—not just the DOJ—to file lawsuits under Section 2?
- If not, enforcement could become almost impossible.
Could the Court ‘Quietly’ End Voting Rights?
By rewriting or tightening court standards (like overturning Thornburg v. Gingles), the Court could require plaintiffs to prove racial intent—rather than just discriminatory effect. That’s a bar few could clear.
A decision like this could be dense and technical—hard for the press and public to follow—but strip civil rights enforcement of its real power.
“Because it’s so hard to explain technical voting rights rulings to the general public—and because it won’t be immediately clear to journalists and others that this is essentially a denuding of Section 2—the Justices just might be able to get away with it.”
— Rick Hasen
📚 Further Reading
Let’s hope the Supreme Court remembers that fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy. The world is watching.