2 articles · Updated · The New York Times · May 16
Louisiana v. Callais has accelerated the dismantling of majority-minority congressional districts, marking a major setback for protections tied to the Voting Rights Act.
The opinion piece argues the court’s ruling reflects clear hostility to the 1965 law, which it says conservatives have used as cover to redraw Southern political maps.
It frames the Voting Rights Act not as a federal imposition but as a democratic achievement won by civil-rights activists and enacted after intense grassroots pressure.
The article also stresses the law’s broad legitimacy: it was signed after a landslide presidential election and reauthorized repeatedly by Congress.
That history, the author argues, makes the current rollback of majority-minority districts a broader challenge to a central postwar expansion of American democracy.
How will courts now distinguish between illegal racial intent and permissible political goals in redistricting?
Landmark 2026 Supreme Court Ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais* Erodes Voting Rights Act Protections for Minority Voters
Overview
On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, ruling that Louisiana's 2024 election map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The case focused on a map that created a second majority-Black congressional district. While Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act technically remained intact, the Court's majority opinion reinterpreted the legal standard for challenging racially discriminatory maps, making it much harder to prove violations. This decision is seen as the latest in a series of rulings that have significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, which was originally established to protect the voting power of racial minorities after the Civil Rights Movement.