A Supreme Court ruling on Voting Rights Act could help GOP : NPR

A major redistricting case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday could not only determine the fate of the federal Voting Rights Act, but also pave the way for Republicans to win scores of additional seats in Congress.

If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the law, a provision prohibiting racial discrimination in voting, GOP-controlled states could redraw at least 19 more House districts in favor of Republicans, according to the filing. recent report voting rights groups Black Voters Matter Fund and Fair Fight Action.

And depending on when the court rules on the case known as Louisiana v. Callea number of seats could be redistributed before next year's midterm elections.

The analysis comes as President Trump continues to lead the GOP campaign to create new maps in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and other states that could help Republicans retain their slim majority in the House of Representatives after the 2026 elections.

The GOP effort could be boosted by a Supreme Court ruling that eliminates Section 2's longstanding protections against weakening the collective power of racial minority voters.

Many of the landmark legislation's supporters fear such an outcome after the conservative majority court did not rule last year in the Louisiana case and instead scheduled a rare second round of oral arguments expected to focus on the constitutionality of Section 2's redistricting requirements.

A ruling to repeal Section 2 could have a cascading effect on congressional maps largely in Southern states, where Republicans either control both the legislative chambers and the governor's office or have veto-proof majorities in the legislature, and where voting is polarized along racial lines, with black voters tending to vote Democratic and white voters tending to vote Republican.

If mapmakers in these states are no longer required under Section 2 to draw districts in which racial minority voters have a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidate, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina and Texas could end up with fewer Democratic representatives in Congress. The report says Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee could lose all their resources.

Up to 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could also be lost.

All of this leads to the possibility that Republicans will cement single-party control of the House of Representatives for at least a generation, says Cliff Albright, co-founder and executive director of the Black Voters Matter Fund.

“Part of the point we're trying to get across in this report is that what happens in the South doesn't just stay in the South,” Albright adds. “This racial gerrymandering has the potential to not only disempower, disenfranchise Black voters, but also eliminate Black elected officials and Latino elected officials. What happens in these states affects the entire country.”

How the Supreme Court's Overturning of Section 2 Could Lead to “For All” Redistricting

In the Louisiana case, a lower court ordered the state's Republican-controlled legislature to draw a new congressional map after a group of black voters filed a Section 2 lawsuit.

Section 2 “will ensure that all communities of color can still participate equally in the voting process and elect candidates who reflect their interests,” says Alana Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, whose attorneys help represent these black voters. “And if communities of color fail to do that, we will lose what I think most of us consider so fundamental to our democracy, which is equal participation, equal opportunity.”

Card by court order, which was valid for 2024 electionsled to Democrats gaining a second seat in Louisiana.

Group voters who identify themselves as “non-African American”However, the party led by Philippe Calle argues that the racial redistricting that the court ordered to comply with Article 2 is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court ruled against race-based affirmative action They argue that the court must end race-based political mapping at colleges and universities in 2023 under Section 2.

In a rehearing of the Louisiana case, the Supreme Court asked all parties to the case to consider whether the state's “intentional creation of a second minority-majority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

IN one of their latest briefs At the Supreme Court, Republican Louisiana officials are now arguing against the use of race “in any form” in redistricting.

And this is a major shift from previous administrations: Department of Justice under Trump agrees that the protection against racial discrimination provided in section 2 is no longer constitutional.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument from Alabama Republicans.

“The Court could uphold the Voting Rights Act as it did in 2023.” Allen vs Milligan” says Atiba Ellis, professor and associate dean of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “But many observers – and I am one of them – are concerned that the court is becoming more and more cynical about race-based remedies for long-standing civil rights violations. And this decision has the potential to be a watershed moment, with the court declaring it unconstitutional or severely limiting Congress’s ability to create remedies that promote multiracial democracy.”

The decision, coming amid a mid-decade congressional redistricting war between Republicans and Democrats, Ellis adds, could pave the way for true “freedom for all,” also pointing to the court's position. 2019 resolution that partisan gerrymandering is not subject to review by federal courts.

“It’s one thing for politicians on both sides of the party to use the power they have to make an unprecedented power grab. But the most important deterrent to this takeover is preventing racial discrimination,” Ellis says of Title 2. “I think that in the absence of a federal law that would prevent this discrimination, the consequences could be enormous and be felt for decades.”

The window to pass new congressional plans before the midterm elections is closing as state deadlines approach. Louisiana's chief elections official, Secretary of State Nancy Landry, asked the Supreme Court decide the case by early January 2026 to avoid disrupting the state's current schedule.

But the timing remains unclear for the Supreme Court, which typically releases decisions in major cases near the end of its term in June.

Court confirmed what he plans to discuss early next month, whether he will accept North Dakota case on whether individuals and groups whose lawsuits were the primary means of enforcing Section 2 may continue to file lawsuits. Mississippi Republican officials also raised the issue in another redistricting case by direct appeal to a higher court.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey