High court rules 6–3 that Louisiana’s revised map violated the Constitution despite lower court demands tied to Voting Rights Act compliance.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Louisiana’s congressional map, drawn to include a second Black-majority district, violated constitutional limits on the use of race in redistricting, overturning a lower court directive that had required the change under federal law.
In a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the justices determined that the state’s revised map amounted to an impermissible racial gerrymander, even though it had been created in response to a federal judge’s order intended to address alleged discrimination under the Voting Rights Act. The Court’s majority opinion concluded that the Constitution does not allow race to be the primary factor in drawing electoral boundaries.
The dispute began after U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick found that Louisiana’s earlier congressional map—containing only one majority-Black district despite Black residents making up nearly one-third of the population—likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That provision prohibits voting systems that dilute minority voting strength or discriminate based on race or protected status.
To comply with that ruling, the state redrew its map to include a second district where Black voters formed a majority. However, a group of non-Black voters challenged the revised map, arguing it sorted voters explicitly by race and discriminated against others.
A divided federal panel agreed, finding the new map unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed that conclusion, ruling that even when states attempt to follow the Voting Rights Act, they cannot do so in a way that conflicts with constitutional protections.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said, “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 … was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it.” He added that lower courts have sometimes interpreted the statute in ways that compel states to engage in racial distinctions that the Constitution forbids.
Alito acknowledged that compliance with Section 2 can, in some cases, justify limited consideration of race, but said that did not apply in Louisiana’s situation. He wrote that the state’s efforts to follow the lower court’s directive were “understandable,” yet still resulted in “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
The opinion also pointed to the Court’s prior ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, stating that after that decision, some plaintiffs began framing partisan redistricting claims as racial discrimination cases. Alito warned that failing to separate political and racial motivations risks distorting the purpose of the Voting Rights Act.
“If race and politics are not disentangled and a [Section 2] claim is cynically used as a tool for advancing a partisan end, the [Voting Rights Act’s] noble goal will be perverted,” he wrote.
The Court’s three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented.
The case followed an unusual path to resolution. The Court initially heard arguments earlier in 2025 but later scheduled a second round of oral arguments before issuing its final ruling.
The decision clarifies that while federal law protects minority voting rights, it does not authorize states to prioritize race in redistricting when doing so violates constitutional standards governing equal treatment.
Original article
Comments