As much as 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could also be lost.
“This racial gerrymandering has the ability to not just disempower, disenfranchise Black voters and to eliminate Black elected officials and Latino elected officials.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument by Alabama Republicans.
But the timing remains unclear for the Supreme Court, which usually releases decisions for major cases toward the end of its term in June.
Republican state officials in Mississippi have also raised that issue in another redistricting case on direct appeal to the high court.
Returning to the U.S. is a significant redistricting case. A. Not only could the Supreme Court decide Wednesday what would happen to the federal Voting Rights Act, but it could also open the door for Republicans to gain a number of more congressional seats.
The voting rights advocacy organizations Black Voters Matter Fund and Fair Fight Action recently released a report indicating that GOP-controlled states could redraw at least 19 more House of Representatives voting districts in favor of Republicans if the high court overturns the act’s Section 2, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
Additionally, the timing of the court’s decision in the Louisiana v. Callais, a few seats might be redrawn before the midterm elections the following year.
In an effort to help Republicans maintain their slim House majority following the 2026 election, President Trump is spearheading a GOP push for new maps in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and other states.
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down long-standing Section 2 protections against the diluting of the collective power of racial minority voters could help the GOP effort.
Since the conservative-majority court postponed making a decision in the Louisiana case last term and instead scheduled a rare second round of oral arguments, which is anticipated to center on the constitutionality of Section 2’s redistricting requirements, many supporters of the historic law are afraid of such a result.
Republicans either control both legislative chambers and the governor’s office or have a veto-proof majority in the legislature. In these largely Southern states, where voting is racially polarized, with Black voters typically voting Democratic and white voters typically voting Republican, a ruling that guts Section 2 could have a cascading effect on congressional maps.
There may be fewer Democratic representatives in Congress in Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas if mapmakers in those states are not obligated by Section 2 to create districts where voters of racial minorities have a reasonable chance of electing their preferred candidate. According to the report, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee may lose them all.
Additionally, the Congressional Black Caucus may lose up to 30 percent of its members, while the Congressional Hispanic Caucus may lose up to 11 percent.
All of this points to the potential for Republicans to solidify one-party rule in the House for a minimum of one generation, according to Cliff Albright, executive director and co-founder of Black Voters Matter Fund.
“What happens in the South doesn’t just stay in the South,” Albright continues, “and that’s part of the point we’re trying to make with this report.”. Not only could this racial gerrymandering disenfranchise Black voters, but it could also result in the removal of Black and Latino elected officials. The entire nation is impacted by what occurs in these states. “.”.
The potential for a “free-for-all” redistricting process if the Supreme Court overturns Section 2.
A group of Black voters filed a Section 2 lawsuit in Louisiana, and a lower court ordered the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to create a new congressional map.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, whose lawyers are assisting in the representation of those Black voters, says Alanah Odoms, executive director, says Section 2 “ensures all communities of color can still participate equally in the voting process and elect candidates who reflect their interests.”. And if communities of color can’t do that, we risk losing what I think most of us consider to be so essential to our democracy: equal opportunity and participation. “..”.
Democrats gained a second seat in Louisiana as a result of the court-ordered map, which was in place for the 2024 election.
However, Phillip Callais and a group of self-described “non-African American” voters have claimed that the court’s order to redistrict based on race in order to comply with Section 2 is unconstitutional. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against racial affirmative action at colleges and universities. They contend that the court should use Section 2 to stop racial political mapmaking.
The Supreme Court asked all parties to the Louisiana case to examine whether the state’s “intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” when it requested a rehearing. A. Constitution. “.
Republican state officials in Louisiana have argued against the use of race “in any form” in redistricting in one of their most recent briefs to the high court.
Trump’s Justice Department also concurs that Section 2’s anti-racial discrimination safeguards are unconstitutional, which is a significant departure from previous administrations.
The Supreme Court denied a similar argument made by Republicans in Alabama two years ago.
As it did in Allen v. Voting Rights in 2023, the court could uphold the law again. Atiba Ellis, an associate dean and professor at the law school at Case Western Reserve University, says of Milligan. “However, a lot of people, including myself, have been worried about the court growing increasingly doubtful of racial remedies to correct historical civil rights injustices. Additionally, the court may rule that this ruling is unconstitutional or severely limit Congress’s ability to enact remedies that support multiracial democracy. “..”.
“That kind of decision coming amid the ongoing mid-decade congressional redistricting war between Republicans and Democrats could set the stage for a true ‘free-for-all’,” Ellis says, while also citing the court’s 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymandering.
“Politicians on both sides of the aisle using their influence to engage in unprecedented power grabs is one thing. However, Ellis notes that the prevention of racial discrimination has been the most significant check on those grabs in relation to Section 2. “I believe there could be severe repercussions that last for decades if there is no federal legislation to stop that discrimination. “,”.
With state deadlines approaching, the window of opportunity to approve new congressional maps prior to the midterm elections is closing. Secretary of State Nancy Landry, Louisiana’s top election official, has requested that the Supreme Court make a decision in this case by early January 2026 in order to prevent any disruptions to the state’s current schedule.
However, the timing is still uncertain for the Supreme Court, which typically issues rulings in significant cases in June, near the end of its term.
The court confirmed that it will consider whether to take up a case in North Dakota regarding the continued ability of private individuals and groups, whose lawsuits have been the primary means of enforcing Section 2, to file lawsuits early next month. That issue was brought up by Republican state officials in Mississippi in a different redistricting case that was appealed directly to the high court.
