The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made a string of redistricting rulings that critics say have weakened protections for Black and Latino voters. Key decisions—Shelby County, Rucho, and more recent interventions—ended preclearance, limited federal review of partisan gerrymanders, and in some cases delayed remedies under the Voting Rights Act. With Louisiana v. Callais raising direct questions about Section 2, the Court could further curtail a central legal tool used for decades to challenge discriminatory maps.
How Supreme Court Redistricting Rulings Are Eroding Voting Power for Voters of Color
How Supreme Court rulings on redistricting have undermined voters of color
Chief Justice John Roberts’s famous metaphor that the Supreme Court should be “calling balls and strikes” suggests a narrowly constrained judicial role. But in recent redistricting disputes the Court’s conservative supermajority has repeatedly shaped outcomes that entrenched partisan advantages and often did so at the expense of Black and Latino voters.
Recent Landscape
In successive decisions and emergency interventions, the Court has weakened long-standing tools used to prevent racially discriminatory maps and has limited federal courts' ability to police partisan gerrymanders. These choices have practical consequences: delayed relief, maps left in place for entire terms, and the possibility that foundational protections could be erased.
Shelby County and The End Of Preclearance
In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Court invalidated the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula, eliminating routine federal review of voting changes in jurisdictions with documented histories of racial discrimination. More than half of the changes that preclearance blocked historically involved election maps. The majority concluded the coverage formula was outdated, a view dissenters argued ignored a bipartisan congressional record showing ongoing discriminatory practices.
Rucho, Partisanship, And The Race-Party Overlap
In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court ruled that federal courts cannot adjudicate claims of partisan gerrymandering, calling them nonjusticiable political questions. Although the decision maintained that racial gerrymanders remain unlawful, it created a practical loophole: because race and party often correlate—especially in the South—legislatures can pursue aggressive maps and claim partisan motives to shield racially discriminatory designs from federal review.
Deference And Recent Cases
Later rulings have compounded this dynamic. In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2023), the Court treated legislatures' mapmaking as operating under a presumption of good faith, which critics say made it easier for mapped harms to go unchallenged. In Texas and other states, the Supreme Court temporarily left in place lower-court findings that maps had limited Black and Latino voting strength, accepting asserted partisan justifications in a way that undercut district courts' factual findings.
Delays In Relief: Allen v. Milligan
In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Court placed an emergency stay on a unanimous lower-court ruling that found Alabama's plan unlawfully diluted Black voting strength under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Although the Supreme Court later affirmed the lower court's ruling, the emergency action allowed the challenged map to remain in effect for a full congressional term—delaying fair representation for the voters harmed.
The Stakes In Louisiana v. Callais
This backdrop frames Louisiana v. Callais, now before the Court. Rather than resolving the district-level dispute about whether a second majority-Black congressional district was required under Section 2, the justices ordered reargument on the constitutionality of Section 2 itself. Oral argument was heard in October, and a decision is expected this term.
If the Court were to invalidate Section 2, it would remove one of the most consequential federal tools used for decades to challenge maps and voting practices that have discriminatory effects—potentially unleashing new rounds of redistricting that further weaken political representation for voters of color.
Conclusion
Far from merely calling “balls and strikes,” the Court’s recent redistricting jurisprudence has reshaped the rules that govern American elections. By narrowing remedies, delaying relief, and questioning or eroding core statutory protections, the Court has materially affected the political power and representation of Black and Latino voters.
Help us improve.
