In its six-to-three Louisiana v. Callais decision on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, striking down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district as an “unconstitutional gerrymander.” Here’s collected commentary and analysis about its impact.

The return of racial injustice

Bloomberg’s Ronald Brownstein decries the ruling as “travesty” with ominous implications for the growing population of non-white Americans:

The decision points to a future in which these states will gain more congressional representation primarily (or even solely) because of minority population growth, but then deny those citizens meaningful political representation. “It is a striking contradiction,” says Manuel Pastor, executive director of the Equity Research Institute. “It is part of a frightening project of trying to lock in minoritarian [White] rule.” …It is also a recipe for intensifying social tension as non-White citizens — who comprise an inexorably increasing share of society’s workers, taxpayers and consumers — are methodically denied political representation commensurate with their numbers.Through a broad range of decisions — covering issues from employment to academic admissions to elections and voting — the Republican court majority is stacking sandbags against a rising tide of demographic change. In so doing, they are operating much like the reactionary Supreme Court that dismantled Reconstruction and midwifed the birth of Jim Crow segregation in the late 19th century. The Roberts Court “is following the same pattern,” says [University of Connecticut historian Manisha Sinha]. “I think they are just as intent about dismantling what we historians call the Second Reconstruction of American democracy during the Civil Rights era.”

The decision points to a future in which these states will gain more congressional representation primarily (or even solely) because of minority population growth, but then deny those citizens meaningful political representation. “It is a striking contradiction,” says Manuel Pastor, executive director of the Equity Research Institute. “It is part of a frightening project of trying to lock in minoritarian [White] rule.” …

It is also a recipe for intensifying social tension as non-White citizens — who comprise an inexorably increasing share of society’s workers, taxpayers and consumers — are methodically denied political representation commensurate with their numbers.

Through a broad range of decisions — covering issues from employment to academic admissions to elections and voting — the Republican court majority is stacking sandbags against a rising tide of demographic change. In so doing, they are operating much like the reactionary Supreme Court that dismantled Reconstruction and midwifed the birth of Jim Crow segregation in the late 19th century. The Roberts Court “is following the same pattern,” says [University of Connecticut historian Manisha Sinha]. “I think they are just as intent about dismantling what we historians call the Second Reconstruction of American democracy during the Civil Rights era.”

The GOP’s wannabe bonanza

I wrote about the enthusiastic response to the Callais ruling from the Republican/MAGA world, including the GOP leaders who want immediate action, even with looming primaries:

[These leaders have time] if they’re willing to drop an anvil on candidates running under the existing maps and confuse voters thoroughly instead of doing the right thing and waiting until next year, if not until the next regularly scheduled round of redistricting after the 2030 census.What’s the rush? Well, that’s obvious. Trump’s gerrymandering effort has fallen well short of the net gains Republicans had hoped for in order to rig the overall results and hang onto the U.S. House. Now the Supreme Court may have given them one more final chance to flip seats and the script.

[These leaders have time] if they’re willing to drop an anvil on candidates running under the existing maps and confuse voters thoroughly instead of doing the right thing and waiting until next year, if not until the next regularly scheduled round of redistricting after the 2030 census.

What’s the rush? Well, that’s obvious. Trump’s gerrymandering effort has fallen well short of the net gains Republicans had hoped for in order to rig the overall results and hang onto the U.S. House. Now the Supreme Court may have given them one more final chance to flip seats and the script.

Cook Political Report’s bottom line

From Amy Walter and Matthew Klein:

We are swimming in uncharted waters. Republicans could conceivably push for redraws that net them a few seats in 2026, but it’s unclear at this point how many of those maps will go into effect given the challenges of the timeline and the inevitable torrent of litigation to come. However, it’s become almost inevitable that both parties will continue the redistricting wars that began last year in Texas into 2027 and beyond. 

We are swimming in uncharted waters. Republicans could conceivably push for redraws that net them a few seats in 2026, but it’s unclear at this point how many of those maps will go into effect given the challenges of the timeline and the inevitable torrent of litigation to come. However, it’s become almost inevitable that both parties will continue the redistricting wars that began last year in Texas into 2027 and beyond. 

A new supreme love affair with partisanship?

Votebeat’s Nathaniel Rakich and Carrie Levine spoke with multiple legal experts:

Multiple experts said they were struck by the opinion’s embrace of partisan gerrymandering. Citing the Rucho decision, the Callais opinion updated the criteria for proving a Voting Rights Act violation to include the fact that any remedial maps must also achieve the map-drawer’s “specified political goals,” such as partisan gain. Li called this “nonsense.”Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, pointed out that the court’s decision in Rucho treated partisan gerrymandering as undesirable, but something federal courts didn’t have jurisdiction to address. In Alito’s Callais opinion, though, “it’s the opposite, and it’s like some protected right that legislatures have,” Gaber said. Alito “elevated it in importance over a statute Congress actually passed, pursuant to its constitutional authority, to prohibit racial discrimination in voting.”The implications of the decision will take time to play out, and it doesn’t necessarily mean there are no longer any guardrails in redistricting. Partisan gerrymandering is still illegal under some state constitutions, and some states have independent redistricting commissions whose goal is to draw fairer political maps.But efforts to depoliticize the map-drawing process, which Green noted had been gaining steam in the past couple decades, have hit a major roadblock with states’ 2025-26 decisions to redraw their congressional maps for partisan gain.However, opponents of partisan redistricting are not entirely out of options. “This decision leaves some room for Congress — not much, but some — to correct the court’s understanding, to readjust the Voting Rights Act, and that will be an imperative,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School.

Multiple experts said they were struck by the opinion’s embrace of partisan gerrymandering. Citing the Rucho decision, the Callais opinion updated the criteria for proving a Voting Rights Act violation to include the fact that any remedial maps must also achieve the map-drawer’s “specified political goals,” such as partisan gain. Li called this “nonsense.”

Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, pointed out that the court’s decision in Rucho treated partisan gerrymandering as undesirable, but something federal courts didn’t have jurisdiction to address. In Alito’s Callais opinion, though, “it’s the opposite, and it’s like some protected right that legislatures have,” Gaber said. Alito “elevated it in importance over a statute Congress actually passed, pursuant to its constitutional authority, to prohibit racial discrimination in voting.”

The implications of the decision will take time to play out, and it doesn’t necessarily mean there are no longer any guardrails in redistricting. Partisan gerrymandering is still illegal under some state constitutions, and some states have independent redistricting commissions whose goal is to draw fairer political maps.

But efforts to depoliticize the map-drawing process, which Green noted had been gaining steam in the past couple decades, have hit a major roadblock with states’ 2025-26 decisions to redraw their congressional maps for partisan gain.

However, opponents of partisan redistricting are not entirely out of options. “This decision leaves some room for Congress — not much, but some — to correct the court’s understanding, to readjust the Voting Rights Act, and that will be an imperative,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School.

Vox’s Ian Millhiser is also struck by the new green light for partisan cynicism:

More broadly, Callais is such an effusive love letter to the concept of partisan gerrymandering that it is likely to eliminate any remaining concerns political parties may have that the Supreme Court might push back if states draw maps too obviously rigged in their favor. Rucho already established that partisan gerrymandering is allowed. Callais effectively rules that racial gerrymandering is also allowed, so long as it also achieves partisan ends.

More broadly, Callais is such an effusive love letter to the concept of partisan gerrymandering that it is likely to eliminate any remaining concerns political parties may have that the........

© Daily Intelligencer