The Court heard oral arguments in the case involving racial gerrymandering in Louisiana late last year and could issue a decision anytime between now and June.
The timing of the decision will determine how aggressive redistricting might be, which could “dramatically decrease minority representation” and “spur another gerrymandering war,” Michael McNulty, Issue One policy director and a report co-author, told Raw Story.
McNulty called Louisiana v. Callais “the most important redistricting case” since Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 ruling that determined federal courts cannot address alleged cases of partisan gerrymandering, of the sort now pursued by Republican- and Democratic-held states alike.
“We're worried that [the Supreme Court] could eliminate the last meaningful federal check on discriminatory maps,” McNulty said.
“If the Supreme Court does weaken or dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it would basically leave … no real federal-level guardrails against diluting racial votes.”
‘The precipice’
Experts have expressed concern for months that the Court will issue a 6-3 conservative majority decision to weaken or even declare unconstitutional Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits racial discrimination against voters.
In this scenario, conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts would affirm a district court ruling that a Louisiana congressional map redrawn in 2024 to create a second Black-majority district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
That’s despite the fact that the map was redrawn to ensure Black representation after a federal court determined redistricting based on the 2020 census was likely in violation of federal law.
In that map, only one of Louisiana’s six districts represented a majority of Black voters, though one-third of the state’s population is Black.
“I'm concerned based on the oral arguments in that case and the way this Roberts Court has been playing a pretty ruthless game of chess against our voting rights and fair representation, that the Roberts Court is poised to decimate the protections … to prevent the dilution of Black votes and Black and brown voting in America,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of public policy watchdog group True North Research and co-founder of Court Accountability, a nonprofit.
Graves, who last year published the book Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights, said Roberts started his legal career “attacking” Section 2 of the VRA and was questioned during nomination hearings over his “mean-spirited view” of the law.
“John Roberts sits at the precipice of potentially winning what he could not win as a Justice Department lawyer by using the Court to advance his long-standing partisan goal of basically protecting his party at any cost and the cost of our voting rights,” Graves said.
‘Immediate and severe’
The Issue One report argues that consequences would be “immediate and severe” if the Supreme Court hampers or eliminates states’ ability “to use race-conscious remedies to comply with federal voting rights law,” the outcome of siding with the challenger in Louisiana v. Callais.
“Black voters would likely lose a significant amount of representation in Congress,” McNulty said.
“We're very concerned about the impact of any gerrymandering, but this in particular has a double negative impact because it's taking away from representation, and it's specifically from minority representation, if it were to happen.”
If the Court issued such a decision in late February or early March, aggressive redistricting could lead to gerrymandering five to eight House seats to benefit Republicans in the midterms and reduce Black representation in states including Florida, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee, the report says.
The Court issued another much-anticipated decision on Friday, striking down President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.
An April or May ruling on Louisiana v. Callais would reduce the risk of further gerrymandering before this year’s midterms but two to four seats could still be affected, with Florida the most likely to try to redraw maps, the report says.
Even if the Court waits to rule until June, before it enters its summer recess, it could allow states such as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas to redraw maps for 2028 and beyond, resulting in 15 to 18 gerrymandered districts, McNulty said.
“If [the Court] were to gut Section Two, it would essentially allow state legislatures, or those making decisions in each of the states, to dilute the vote of primarily Black voters … such that it would advantage Republicans in all cases,” McNulty said.
“These are not gerrymanders that would favor Democrats because these are red-controlled, GOP-controlled state legislatures that would use every opportunity to essentially … gerrymander based on race, and that would favor the GOP in all cases.”
Mitchell Brown, senior voting rights counsel for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said redistricting can primarily be challenged by alleging intentional discrimination, racial gerrymandering or violations of the VRA.
A Court ruling that weakens the VRA will make it harder to challenge maps that are “unfair and inequitable for Black and brown voters,” he said.
“It’s going to have potentially a huge impact on our ability to bring redistricting cases,” Brown said. “We have to now have smoking gun evidence of you discriminating against Black or brown voters.”
‘Last guardrail’
Issue One fights gerrymandering as “an attack on democracy and an attack on voters and representation,” McNulty said.
The nonpartisan group advocates for reforms including banning mid-decade redistricting, establishing national standards for drawing congressional maps, and requiring states to use independent redistricting commissions.
“Congress needs to step up and take action,” McNulty said.
“We need to stop the madness, and there's zero reason why they should be letting politicians pick their voters anytime, anywhere, and diminishing the voice of voters, as they've done through the decade.”
Graves, who was chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2002-05, said if the Supreme Court weakens Section 2 of the VRA, it would “basically put its fists on the scale in favor of the party that appointed this majority faction,” and would “bleach out the Black representation in Congress.”
“I would consider such a ruling by this court to be an illegitimate dictate from this captured court, the Roberts Court, that is acting in a way that is arrogant and inconsistent with the role of the Supreme Court in trying to displace the proper role of Congress in protecting the voting rights of Americans,” Graves said.
McNulty said the VRA was “the last remaining guardrail” to fight racism in elections.
If the right-wing justices weaken the Voting Rights Act, Graves said, it would show “outrageous hostility” toward Black voters.
Such justices, Graves said, are “not just willing, but eager, to help their party entrench their power to secure basically political minority rule over the rights of majorities in their states and to make Congress whiter and more Republican than is merited by the diversity of American society.”
Chris Gibbs (provided photo)