Supreme Court Could Weaken Voters Rights Protections
The outcome of the 2026 midterm election could be highly influenced by a current case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is signaling that it is open to undermining the landmark Voting Rights Act as it hears a congressional redistricting case from Louisiana. Here is a look at this case and what implications it may have on the national political landscape.
Voting Rights Act Under Fire in Supreme Court
The conservative-leaning Supreme Court appears poised to potentially undercut the Voting Rights Act once again. The justices heard oral arguments on Wednesday, debating whether states can consider race when drawing new districts. At issue is Section 2 of the 1965 act, a law that was enacted in an attempt to protect minority voters from racial discrimination at the polls.
The Supreme Court has a history of chipping away at the Voting Rights Act. Two rulings in 2013 and 2021 eroded some of these protections, with it looking possible that conservatives will once again emerge as the winners of this case.
The dispute surrounds a new congressional map that the state of Louisiana was mandated to redraw in 2024 after being used under the Voting Rights Act. The new map was put in place to ensure that the state had two majority-Black voting districts. The original map only provided one district. This is notable for a state where roughly a third of the residents are Black.
The highest court in the land heard the case earlier in the year on a smaller scope. However, the court recently requested that tthe parties reargue it, directing the lawyers to hone in on a more expansive issue. The Supreme Court rarely asks for a case to be heard again, signaling that this decision could set a major precedent.
Although Louisiana officials initially defended its new map, the state has now changed its position on the issue. The state has now joined a group that identifies as non-African-American voters who attempted to block the map, suing under the allegation that it is gerrymandering. It should be noted that the Trump administration is in agreement with Louisiana's new position that the new map is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court justices are now debating whether the new map designed to ensure Black districts is in violation of the Constitution's 14th and 15th amendments. Both of these amendments were ratified after the Civil War to provide equal citizen rights for former slaves.
The conservatives against the new map argue that the 14th and 15th amendments prohibit the consideration of race at any time, including the redrawing of voting districts. The current Supreme Court has previously ruled on the side of a colorblind Constitution. In 2023, the court effectively ended the consideration of race during the college admissions process.
About Wednesday's Arguments
Wednesday's oral arguments lasted about two and a half hours. While it is still not known how the court will rule, some judicial experts believe that the conservative majority will continue to limit the power of the Voting Rights Act, mitigating the power of civil rights groups to oppose state maps.
The Trump administration has proposed that the court keep Section 2 as is written, but modify a 1986 Supreme Court decision in the Thornburg v. Gingles case. This would give states more wiggle room to draw maps using additional partisan examinations. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh has signaled that he could get on board with this argument.
A Supreme Court decision from two years ago could complicate this decision. During this case, the court reaffirmed the mandate that race be a consideration when redrawing districts to comply with the law. The surprise 5-4 decision from the conservative court was in relation to an Alabama congressional redistricting issue. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Kavanaugh joined their three liberal judges in siding with the majority ruling.
However, Roberts appeared to downplay the importance of the Alabama case ruling in Wednesday's argument. In addition, Kavanaugh reiterated a point he made in the past that indicated that race as a means to redistrict under the Voting Rights Act was not designed to be indefinite, suggesting that changing times could result in changing rules.
On the other side of the aisle, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the Trump administration of simply trying to abolish Section 2 completely. A ruling in favor of the state of Louisiana would likely reduce the amount of minority representation in Washington, D.C., as well as across state legislatures. Political experts also note that a quick ruling could give states enough time to redraw their districts prior to the 2026 midterms, potentially benefiting the Republican Party ahead of the pivotal election.
Did you find this content useful? Feel free to bookmark or to post to your timeline for reference later.