Justice Clarence Thomas said Wednesday the Supreme Court should go further than its latest Voting Rights Act ruling, arguing the law's key anti-discrimination provision was divisive and should never apply to redistricting cases. "As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that [Section Two] of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all," Thomas wrote in a concurrence joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The remarks came as part of the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which upheld a finding that one of the state's majority-Black congressional districts was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling narrows Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law making it illegal for voting policies to discriminate based on race.
The case arose from Louisiana's redistricting efforts after the 2020 census, during which the state added a second majority-Black district after a lower court said the Voting Rights Act required it. That new map was then struck down as a racial gerrymander, setting up the lawsuit that rose to the Supreme Court.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative legal scholars and Republican officials praised the ruling as a step toward race-neutral politics. Thomas, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, has long advocated limiting the Voting Rights Act's reach on redistricting.
"The assumptions upon which our vote dilution decisions have been based should be repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color blind Constitution," Thomas wrote in his 1994 concurrence in Holder v. Hall, which he quoted again Wednesday.
Supporters argue the ruling prevents states from using race as a primary factor when drawing district lines. The Republican National Committee filed a brief supporting Louisiana's position, arguing that mapmakers should consider traditional redistricting criteria like communities of interest rather than racial percentages.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive advocates and Democratic lawmakers argued the ruling undermines decades of civil rights protections. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the three liberal justices in dissent, said the decision "renders Section 2 all but dead letter."
"Under the Court's new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power," Kagan wrote.
Civil rights organizations echoed those concerns. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights called the ruling "a devastating blow to democracy," arguing it strips away tools used for decades to combat racial discrimination in electoral maps. Voting rights advocates said the decision makes it easier for states to draw districts that diminish the political influence of Black and minority voters.
What the Numbers Show
The Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines in Louisiana v. Callais. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, which stopped short of Thomas' more sweeping position but still found Louisiana's map unconstitutional.
Section Two of the Voting Rights Act has been used in more than 1,000 redistricting lawsuits since its passage in 1965. The provision prohibits voting policies that discriminate based on race, including those that result in diluted minority voting power.
Louisiana previously had one majority-Black congressional district out of six. After the 2020 census, a court-ordered map created a second majority-Black district, which became the subject of the lawsuit.
The Bottom Line
The ruling narrows how states can use race when drawing districts but stops short of Thomas' call to eliminate Section Two entirely from redistricting cases. Legal experts say the decision gives states more flexibility in map-drawing while still prohibiting extreme racial packing.
Voting rights groups expect challenges to maps across the country as states interpret what the ruling allows. The decision is expected to affect upcoming redistricting cycles, particularly in Southern states with large minority populations. Justices indicated they may revisit the broader question of Section Two's reach in future cases.