Supreme Court Reconsiders Voting Rights Act's Section 2, Potentially Impacting 19 House Seats

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently re-examining a pivotal provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 2, a move that could significantly reshape the nation's electoral landscape and potentially impact the control of up to 19 House seats. This development stems from the high-profile case Louisiana v. Callais, which saw reargument before the justices, signaling a potential major shift in voting rights jurisprudence. The ongoing scrutiny has prompted observers, including Harmeet K. Dhillon, to note that "Voting Rights Act — changes afoot? Stay tuned!"

At the heart of the legal challenge is Louisiana's congressional redistricting map. Following the 2020 census, a federal judge found the state's initial map diluted Black voting power, leading to the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district. However, a group of white voters subsequently challenged this new map, arguing it constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has historically served as a crucial tool, allowing voters of color to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps and practices. Enacted 60 years ago, it aimed to prevent electoral procedures that result in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or color. Its potential weakening could have profound implications for minority representation nationwide.

During oral arguments, conservative justices expressed skepticism about the indefinite use of race as a factor in drawing electoral districts. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh notably questioned whether there should be a "sunset" or "end point" for race-based remedies. Lawyers for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund warned of "catastrophic" implications if Section 2 were to be significantly curtailed.

Should the Supreme Court rule to limit Section 2, analyses suggest Republicans could gain as many as 19 House seats from map changes cascading across multiple states. This could profoundly influence the 2026 midterm elections, particularly if a decision is issued quickly enough for states to redraw maps. The state of Louisiana, initially defending its map, has since reversed its stance, with Attorney General Liz Murrill stating that the Constitution "sees neither Black voters nor white voters; it sees only American voters."

The Callais case is not the only challenge facing the landmark civil rights law; a separate case from North Dakota is also pending before the Supreme Court, questioning whether private parties can sue to enforce the VRA. Furthermore, state-level voting rights laws, some more robust than the federal statute, could also face legal threats if the federal provision is weakened.