The voting rights case that could set us back 60 years

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a landmark achievement, transforming America by ending the Jim Crow era and banning racial discrimination in elections. Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated it enriches the lives of all Americans. Lyndon Johnson prioritized black civil rights, seeing the denial of voting rights as a denial of democracy itself. The VRA quickly increased Black voter registration, with Mississippi seeing a jump from less than 7% to 60% in just two years. However, in recent decades, conservative Supreme Court justices have moved to dismantle the VRA. A current case, Louisiana v. Calais, threatens to gut key provisions prohibiting racial discrimination in redistricting, potentially erasing over half a century of voting rights progress. This case will decide if Louisiana must maintain majority-Black districts and if the VRA can continue protecting minority representation nationwide. The VRA has two key pillars: Section 2, which bans denying the right to vote on account of race and includes the right to elect representatives of choice, and Section 5, which required certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get federal permission for voting law changes. Three major cases illuminate the VRA's evolution. Thornburg v. Jingles (1986) built on Section 2, establishing rules for racial gerrymandering violations, focusing on residential segregation and racially polarized voting. This led to an increase in Black representatives through the creation of more majority-Black districts. Conversely, Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck down Section 5, leading to a flood of new voting restrictions disproportionately affecting minority voters. The premise was that the racism of 1965 no longer existed, rendering the protective law unnecessary. More recently, Allen v. Milligan (2023) saw the Roberts Court uphold essential parts of Section 2, striking down a racially gerrymandered map in Alabama, a surprising outcome given the court's perceived hostility to the VRA. Now, in Louisiana v. Calais, the Supreme Court appears willing to strike down Section 2. Louisiana's 2022 electoral map included only one majority-Black district despite Black people comprising one-third of the population. Civil rights groups sued, resulting in a new map with two majority-Black districts. However, non-African American voters claimed this new map was unconstitutional, arguing that fixing discrimination against Black voters constituted discrimination against white voters. The arguments in Calais centered on whether the intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violates the 14th or 15th amendments, and if race-based remedies should have an endpoint. Republican justices seem determined to eliminate the VRA's anti-gerrymandering safeguards but lack a coherent rationale. Critics argue this uses amendments designed to protect minority communities to instead diminish their voice. If Section 2 is struck down, any use of race in districting, even to remedy discrimination, could become illegal. This could have catastrophic effects, potentially flipping 19 House seats Republican and setting back voting rights by 60 years. The ruling, expected before the 2026 midterms, will likely reignite the fight for voting rights in America.