...
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote as the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana v. Callais.
The immediate result is a blow to one district, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields. But the larger consequence is structural: the Court has made election law more hospitable to partisan mapmaking and less hospitable to race-based vote-dilution claims.
That doesn't mean every minority-opportunity district disappears tomorrow. It means the next redistricting fight will be argued in safer language: party, incumbency, compactness, timing. Here are five ways the Supreme Court just changed elections in the U.S.
Read More on Analysis
1. Section 2 Lawsuits Art Harder to Win
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars voting practices that deny or abridge voting rights on account of race or color, and the Justice Department has described it as applying to redistricting plans and methods of election for government bodies.
The Court did not formally erase Section 2, but it changed what plaintiffs must prove before a redistricting case can succeed.
The opinion says plaintiffs’ illustrative maps cannot use race as a districting criterion, must satisfy traditional criteria and must also meet a state’s specified political goals.
That's the hinge of the case. Section 2 suits have long depended on showing that a reasonably configured minority-opportunity district could be drawn.
Now, plaintiffs must also show that their alternative map fits the state’s legitimate political objectives at least as well. The Court also said plaintiffs must control for party affiliation when proving racial bloc voting.
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent called the result severe and "far-reaching", writing that “today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.”
The majority framed the move more narrowly, saying Section 2 liability should arise only when evidence supports a strong inference that a state intentionally reduced minority voters’ opportunity because of race.
2. States Have More Room to Justify Maps on Political Grounds
The Court’s most consequential move was not limiting race-conscious remedies. It was blessing a larger escape route: politics.
The majority said Section 2 does not intrude on states’ authority to draw districts based on nonracial factors, “including to achieve partisan advantage.” That sentence will be read closely by every legislative lawyer drafting the next map.
The Court leaned on its 2019 ruling that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court, and it said courts must treat partisan advantage as a constitutionally permissible criterion in racial-gerrymandering analysis.
Which creates an obvious incentive. A state need not say it is weakening Black or Latino voting power. It can say it is protecting incumbents, preserving a partisan balance or maximizing party advantage.
Under the new test, plaintiffs must disentangle race from politics when those categories overlap in voting behavior.
3. Some Minority-Opportunity Districts Are Now at Greater Risk
The ruling could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats.
Election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos estimates that nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2.
Not all of those districts are legally doomed. But some are newly exposed if states can plausibly say race was not the driver, politics was.
The Court’s opinion says Louisiana’s second majority-minority district was unconstitutional because the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create it and no compelling interest justified the state’s use of race.
The dissent saw a wider map. Kagan wrote that districts giving minority citizens, particularly Black citizens, a meaningful political voice now exist “only on sufferance, and probably not for long.”
4. The Mid-Decade Redistricting Arms Race Is Intensified
The ruling lands in a redistricting cycle already untethered from the old once-a-decade rhythm. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) says states began undertaking mid-decade redistricting in 2025 at rates not seen since the 1800s.
NCSL says seven states have implemented new congressional maps: California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah and Virginia.
Florida’s process shows why Callais matters beyond Louisiana.
Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, called a special redistricting session to begin in April after citing the need to wait for Supreme Court guidance on the use of race in drawing electoral districts.
The Court did not start the arms race. It changed the rules of engagement. If states can defend aggressive maps as partisan rather than racial, the fastest way to gain House seats may be to redraw first and litigate later.
5. House Control Is Even More Dependent on Map Warfare
The decision could even affect the balance of power in Congress.
Cook Political Report is already tracking how many congressional seats each party could gain in states where redistricting is underway or may still occur.
That's the real political lesson of the ruling. In a closely divided House, the most important campaigns may not be candidate campaigns at all.
They may be legal campaigns, special sessions, ballot measures, and emergency appeals over where the lines fall.
It's a process already underway with the redistricting wars kicked off in Texas under President Donald Trump's direction, and which soon met a Democratic retaliation in California.
Subtle Changes
The Court has not abolished the Voting Rights Act, and it has not ordered states to redraw every district with a minority electorate.
It has done something more subtle and more useful to mapmakers: it has made partisan explanations more powerful and race-based challenges harder to prove.
If the next phase of American elections feels less like persuasion and more like cartography, Callais will be one big reason why.
Hey gang, Carlo Versano here. I hope you enjoyed this article. As Newsweek's Director of Politics and Culture and editor of the 1600 newsletter, I'm keen to hear what you think. Now, Newsweek is offering a new service to allow you to communicate directly with me in the form of a text message chat. You can sign up and get a direct line to me, as well as the reporters who work for me. You can shape our coverage.
As a Newsweek member, we're offering this service to you for free. You can sign up below, or read more about how it works here. Let's talk!
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines