Disputes have arisen over maps of congressional districts, which could prompt a decision that would threaten Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2024, a new congressional district map in Louisiana was proposed, creating two majority-minority districts out of six total districts. Lawmakers advocating for the map claim that Louisiana’s one-third black population had been underrepresented in previous district maps, invoking Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which aims to ensure minority groups have a voice in elections. This includes preventing minority groups from being placed in districts that would render their votes useless or inconsequential, also known as “cracking and packing.” However, another group of voters has sued, claiming that the map was gerrymandered–the process of redefining distinct boundaries for the benefit of one political party–with an unconstitutional emphasis on race.
Louisiana v. Callais has now been put in front of the Supreme Court, which is interested in determining whether purposefully creating majority-minority districts in regions where minority groups make up large parts of the population is constitutional. In particular, the Supreme Court would like to examine if this practice violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth amendments. The Court heard arguments on October 15, but has yet to make a decision. Advocacy groups have warned that if this provision is struck down, red states could successfully undertake large-scale redistricting efforts to keep Democratic candidates out.
Voting rights activists are particularly concerned about this decision because of previous rulings by the Supreme Court that may threaten the Voting Rights Act. In Shelby v. Holder, which was ruled in 2013, the Court decided that the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance section—which states that regions with a history of discriminatory voting restrictions must have any new voting laws secure approval from the federal government—was no longer necessary nor applicable. However, supporters of preclearance claim that the law can make the process of enforcing the Voting Rights Act more efficient. Instead of going through lawsuits to prove that the voting laws are discriminatory, the mapmakers must prove that their map is not discriminatory before it is put into effect. In addition, many activists have found that an influx in discriminatory laws followed the decision.
New congressional district maps have been introduced across the country, which will be particularly important in the upcoming midterm elections. In Texas, a new map was drawn that will likely lead to five more Republican congressmen taking office. In response to this, California created new district maps that would favor Democratic candidates. The redistricting proposition will be voted on November 4. Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and New York have also discussed combatting Texas’ redistricting with their own maps.
On the other side of the aisle, Indiana and North Carolina have considered redrawing maps of their own. These efforts have become more frequent after President Trump called on Republican lawmakers to secure more seats, even through gerrymandering. Currently, Republicans only hold a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, making these redistricting attempts potentially consequential for both parties.