The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday in Louisiana v. Callais that racial gerrymandering violates the Constitution, holding that neither the Voting Rights Act nor the 14th Amendment gives legislators authority to manipulate districts to guarantee the race of elected representatives.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, echoing language he first used in 2006: 'It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.' The decision builds on decades of jurisprudence from the Roberts Court aimed at establishing colorblind standards in law.
What the Left Is Saying
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) called the ruling part of a broader effort to reshape elections, saying the court itself has been 'gerrymandered' to rig upcoming elections through its composition and rulings.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) declared the Court 'illegitimate' following the Callais opinion. Democratic leaders have pledged to reverse these decisions and some advocates demand packing the Court with a liberal majority if Democrats retake power.
Progressive groups argue the decision weakens protections for minority representation established under the Voting Rights Act. Civil rights organizations contend that while intentional racial discrimination in voting remains prohibited, the ruling creates obstacles for districts designed to ensure minority voters have equitable political voice.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative legal scholars praise the decision as the culmination of principled jurisprudence. Supporters argue it fulfills Roberts' long-stated view that 'the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.'
Senate Republicans hailed the ruling as a victory for equal protection. They note the Court did not strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and will still bar districts designed to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.
Conservative commentators argue this represents progress toward a colorblind legal system where individuals are judged by their actions rather than demographic characteristics, pointing to the election of a Black president and vice president as evidence that civil rights goals can be achieved without racial criteria in districting.
What the Numbers Show
The Callais decision is the latest in a series of 5-4 rulings along ideological lines during the Roberts Court era. Previous decisions have addressed affirmative action in college admissions and voting procedures.
White voters are expected to become a minority demographic in the United States within two decades, according to Census Bureau projections. Non-white voters now represent a significant and growing portion of the electorate.
The Voting Rights Act was originally passed in 1965 with strong bipartisan support and has been reauthorized multiple times, though recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowed its coverage.
The Bottom Line
The Louisiana v. Callais decision establishes that using race as the predominant factor in drawing electoral districts violates constitutional protections against racial discrimination. Courts will still review claims of intentional racial discrimination in voting rules.
Both civil rights advocates and their opponents acknowledge this represents a significant shift in voting rights law. What happens next likely depends on whether Congress chooses to respond with legislation or whether future courts revisit these precedents.