The future of voting rights in America hangs in the balance, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to dismantle the last remaining pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a move that could fundamentally alter the landscape of electoral fairness for Black Americans. But here’s where it gets controversial: the Court seems ready to strike down Section 2 of the Act, which has long served as a safeguard against racial gerrymandering designed to weaken Black political influence. If this happens, it won’t just be a legal decision—it will be a seismic shift in the fight for racial equality.
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, centers on congressional redistricting maps drawn after the 2020 census. Louisiana, with a population that’s roughly one-third Black, initially proposed maps with only one majority-Black district, despite being eligible for six House seats. Voters sued, and federal courts ordered the state to redraw the maps to include a second majority-Black district, ensuring Black Louisianans had a fair chance to elect representatives of their choice. But now, a group of self-identified “non-African-American voters” is challenging these maps, arguing that enforcing the Voting Rights Act (VRA) violates their rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments. They claim that maps designed to remedy racial discrimination against Black voters actually discriminate against non-Black (read: white) voters. And the Court seems inclined to agree.
This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has chipped away at the VRA. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Court gutted Section 5, which required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to seek federal approval for changes to voting laws. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that racial inequality had diminished enough to render such protections unnecessary—a claim that has since been proven tragically false. In the years following Shelby, states imposed new voting restrictions, and the gap between Black and white voter participation rates widened dramatically, especially in areas previously covered by Section 5. Now, the Court appears ready to apply the same flawed logic to Section 2, effectively dismantling the last line of defense against racial gerrymandering.
And this is the part most people miss: the Court’s conservative majority is not just interpreting the law—they’re rewriting it. Justices like Kavanaugh and Alito have argued that racial gerrymandering is justified if it’s framed as partisan gerrymandering, prioritizing lawmakers’ stated intentions over the discriminatory impact of their actions. This flies in the face of established precedent, which holds that discriminatory impact, not intent, is the key factor in determining illegal racial discrimination. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a passionate advocate for civil rights, has tirelessly argued that race is at the heart of the issue, but her colleagues seem unmoved.
The Roberts Court has consistently shown hostility toward racial justice claims, often inverting civil rights law to entrench historical hierarchies rather than challenge them. Louisiana’s attorney general, for example, has absurdly claimed that assuming Black voters might vote differently than white voters is an unconstitutional racial stereotype—a claim that elicited exasperation from Justice Kagan. But Roberts’s ideology is clear: he believes that the way to end racial discrimination is to ignore race entirely, even if that means perpetuating systemic inequality. As he famously stated, “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
If the Court rules in favor of Louisiana, it will no longer be illegal to gerrymander districts to dilute Black voting power, but it will be illegal to redraw maps to restore that power. This isn’t just bad reasoning—it’s bad faith. The VRA doesn’t violate the 15th Amendment; it enforces it. For nearly 60 years, it has been the cornerstone of America’s claim to democracy. To dismantle it now is to undermine the very amendments meant to secure equality for Black Americans.
A decision is expected in June, just months before the 2026 midterms. If the Court rules as anticipated, Republicans could gain as many as 19 House seats through racial gerrymandering. But the real question is this: Can a democracy truly thrive when the rights of its most marginalized citizens are systematically eroded? The Court’s decision will shape not just the next election, but the future of American democracy itself. What do you think? Is this a step toward equality—or a giant leap backward?
