The Future of the Voting Rights Act is in the Supreme Court’s Hands

In the late 1960s, the civil rights movement, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., lead to the passage of two landmark pieces of legislation: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Though these historic bills have been the law of the land for decades, that does not mean that they have not faced their fair share of challenges and setbacks. The Voting Rights Act, in particular, has seen scrutiny, manifesting in the form of opinions or critiques, and very rarely taking the form of actual legal changes. That, however, changed with the landmark case of Shelby County v. Holder. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which, in conjunction with section 5, had previously mandated that regions with a history of discrimination could not change their voting processes without federal oversight. Now, over ten years after a decision that many at the time believed to be a “fatal blow” to the Voting Rights Act, the law once again faces scrutiny from the Supreme Court. This time, even more is at stake. 

The case began with the ongoing redistricting battle, as Democrats and Republicans battle it out for seats ahead of the 2026 midterms. Amid this chaos, race-based gerrymandering has become an important part of the conversation. Enter Louisiana v. Callais. In this case, originally argued before the Supreme Court in March of this year, several white voters claimed that two majority-black districts in Louisiana were unconstitutional, as they unfairly skewed representation. Civil rights groups and opponents of the challengers argued that the districts were an accurate reflection of Louisiana's black population, and that they were justly upholding the equal representation of African Americans outlined in the Voting Rights Act. 

If the Supreme Court sides with the white voters, the outcome could join the growing list of important and infamous decisions handed down by Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ Court. The case concerns Section 2 of the VRA, widely regarded as one of the most crucial protections against race-based discrimination in political representation. In fact, Section 2 is the last place that this principle is directly legally enshrined, and is thus one of the few enforceable checkbacks for minorities who feel they have been underrepresented or that their districts have been unjustly drawn. Without Section 2, it would likely become possible for states to racially gerrymander their districts to exclude minorities without facing any legal ramifications or protests. The decision would not only undermine the principles of the VRA as a whole, but it could also have drastic consequences on other laws and policies related to equality, discrimination, and representation. Additionally, the Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could extremely skew the results of the 2026 midterm elections. Reduced or even eliminated restrictions on racial gerrymandering would greatly benefit Republicans in Congressional representation.  

While Louisiana Republicans hope for an expedited decision in time to provide the most beneficial results for their party in the 2026 midterms, the Court may still not rule on Louisiana v. Callais until the end of their term, when most noteworthy decisions are released. Despite the long wait period and the often tenuous accuracy of guessing the Court’s decisions, the conservative majority seems likely, at least at this time, to weaken considerations of racial equity in the districting process, particularly for minorities. Despite conservative justices Roberts and Kavanaugh ruling to uphold the same considerations in an Alabama case just two years ago, the facts of the case were quite different, and the two justices seem inclined to vote differently this time around. Combining early indications, the potential midterm benefits to Republicans and recent Court decisions that have looked away from racial considerations in policies—such as affirmative action—and a ruling that limits or even eliminates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not seem unlikely. 

Read more here: 

• Mark Sherman, AP News

• Tom Lopach, The Hill

• Nick Corasaniti, New York Times

Extemp Analysis by: Brogan Jones

Question: Will the Supreme Court weaken the Voting Rights Act? 

AGD: If you’re going for something serious and impactful, I think a perfect AGD is explaining the history and significance behind the Voting Rights Act, and why it is such an important piece of legislation. You could even go into depth about the struggle of the civil rights movement in securing these rights and freedoms for minorities in America. 

Background: Especially if you go with the suggested AGD above, it would be best to include actual specifics about the VRA as well as the Supreme Court’s history with the law as background information (the 2013 decision would be a very good thing to include here). 

Answer: If I got this question, my answer would be yes for three key reasons: 1) There is a conservative majority and the ruling would benefit Republicans, 2) the Supreme Court has increasingly looked away from decisions that favor racial equity, and 3) the specifics of the case provide a reasonable way for the Court to hand out this decision.  

Analysis + Concluding Thoughts:

The first point is the most self-explanatory. All you really need to touch on is how many decisions under the conservative majority of recent years have aligned with conservative values and have favored Republicans’ goals. Insofar as weakening the VRA would further Republicans’ goals this time around, the decision only seems like the most likely ruling from this Supreme Court. 

For the second point, I would bring up affirmative action and the “colorblind” policy of the court in recent years. A lot of the discourse behind this case and the case in 2013 was whether or not the provisions of the VRA are necessary today. Many conservative justices have argued that discrimination is not as prevalent, whereas more liberal-leaning justices have argued that the provisions are still necessary protections. The conservative bloc of the court’s view on racial equity should answer the central question of the case, which is whether or not the protections in the VRA are necessary to provide equity. 

Finally, for the third point, I would talk about how the specifics of this case in particular set the court up to make a landmark decision like this. With this court, a lot of the decisions that the court’s conservative bloc has shied away from making have been when there wasn’t proper justification in the specifics of the case to make that decision (such as with their Alabama ruling two years ago). With this case, however, the white voters’ claim that they are the ones being discriminated against provides enough justification to the Court’s majority to effectively gut Section 2 of the VRA and pin any backlash or controversy on the specifics of Louisiana v. Callais.