The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that Louisiana relied too heavily on race when redrawing a congressional district, upholding a 6-3 majority decision that significantly curtails how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be applied. The ruling raises the legal bar for proving voting discrimination to require "a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred," a standard that lawyers and voting rights advocates warn will make it harder to challenge gerrymandered districts that dilute minority voting power.
California's congressional maps will not be affected by the decision. The state's districts were redrawn after voters approved Proposition 50 last November, a measure Governor Gavin Newsom championed following Texas Republicans' redistricting efforts. Proposition 50 was designed to help Democrats gain five additional House seats. The Supreme Court's ruling also nullifies Republican attempts to challenge California's maps as a racial gerrymander.
The broader impact could reshape the national House balance. Several Southern states may now redraw their districts to eliminate "majority-minority" districts designed to amplify nonwhite voter representation. According to a New York Times analysis cited in the ruling's aftermath, such changes could result in as many as 12 Democrats losing their seats. This shift could allow Republicans to control the House even if they lose the national popular vote by a substantial margin.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that while partisan gerrymandering claims cannot be decided in federal court, "race and politics must be disentangled" in racial gerrymandering cases. The court's three-judge liberal minority argued the decision effectively dismantled the Voting Rights Act, which has operated since the 1960s to protect minority voting rights.
California Democrats responded sharply. Governor Newsom called the ruling "outrageous," while Attorney General Rob Bonta warned that past decisions gutting Voting Rights Act provisions have historically been followed by new state laws restricting ballot access for voters of color. Kristin Nimmers, policy and campaigns manager of the Black Power Network, said the decision rolls back "generations of progress."
Some legal experts and voting rights leaders disagreed on the immediate California impact. Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the ruling is unlikely to affect California's recent redistricting. But Rosalind Gold, chief public policy officer of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, warned of dire long-term implications. "By eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, this could open the door to counties and localities looking at how they used Section 2 to draw their maps and challenging those maps," Gold said.
The Supreme Court has been narrowing the Voting Rights Act since 2013. Conservative advocates celebrated the decision. Chris Kieser, senior attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, called it a victory for those arguing that using race in redistricting under Section 2 was improper. "Voting is an individual right, it's not a group right," Kieser said.
