Supreme Court limits race in redistricting, opening new front in gerrymandering
Updated
Updated · The Washington Post · May 5
Supreme Court limits race in redistricting, opening new front in gerrymandering
8 articles · Updated · The Washington Post · May 5
The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais lifts Louisiana's requirement for two majority-Black districts as Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi weigh new maps, while Florida's upheaval spreads across the South.
Critics say the decision could let Republicans target Democratic-leaning seats, even as primary ballots are already printed and Alabama remains under a court order to keep its current map until 2030.
South Carolina and Georgia leaders have resisted immediate redraws, but the dispute breaks with the once-a-decade redistricting norm and may intensify pressure for Congress to restrict mapmaking to post-census cycles.
States are now redrawing election maps mid-decade. What does this new era of constant redistricting mean for voters and elections?
As the Voting Rights Act is narrowed, what new strategies can protect minority representation from being redrawn off the map?
How can states prove new voting maps are fair under the Court's stricter 'intentional discrimination' standard?
On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais, striking down Louisiana's congressional map for racial gerrymandering and imposing a new intent requirement for Voting Rights Act challenges. This ruling forced plaintiffs to prove intentional racial discrimination and present race-neutral alternative maps, making it much harder to contest discriminatory redistricting. Southern states quickly responded by redrawing maps to reduce minority representation, benefiting Republicans and threatening decades of Black political progress. Civil rights leaders warn the decision severely weakens voting rights protections, especially in local elections, and marks a broader judicial trend eroding federal safeguards for minority voters nationwide.