Supreme Court seems inclined to limit race-based electoral districts
under the Voting Rights Act
[October 16, 2025]
By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared ready to gut a
key tool of the Voting Rights Act that has helped root out racial
discrimination in voting for more than a half century, a change that
would boost Republican electoral prospects, particularly across the
South.
During 2 1/2 hours of arguments, the court's six conservative justices
seemed inclined to effectively strike down a Black majority
congressional district in Louisiana because it relied too heavily on
race.
Such an outcome would mark a fundamental change in the 1965 voting
rights law, the centerpiece legislation of the Civil Rights Movement,
that succeeded in opening the ballot box to Black Americans and reducing
persistent discrimination in voting.
A ruling for Louisiana could open the door for legislatures to redraw
congressional maps in southern states, helping Republican electoral
prospects by eliminating majority Black and Latino districts that tend
to favor Democrats. Legislatures already are free to draw extremely
partisan districts, subject only to review by state courts, because of a
2019 Supreme Court decision.
Just two years ago, the court, by a 5-4 vote, affirmed a ruling that
found a likely violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a
similar case over Alabama’s political boundaries. Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined their three more liberal
colleagues in the outcome.
Roberts and Kavanaugh struck a different tone Wednesday, especially in
their questions to civil rights lawyer Janai Nelson.
The chief justice suggested the Alabama decision was tightly focused on
its facts and should not be read to require a similar outcome in
Louisiana.

Kavanaugh pressed Nelson on whether the time has come to end the use of
race-based districts under the Voting Rights Act, rather than “allowing
it to extend forever.”
The court's liberal justices focused on the history of the Voting Rights
Act in combating discrimination. Getting to the remedy of redrawing
districts only happens if, as Justice Elena Kagan said, a court finds "a
specific identified, proved violation of law.”
A mid-decade battle over congressional redistricting already is playing
out across the nation after Republican President Donald Trump began
urging Texas and other GOP-controlled states to redraw their lines to
make it easier for the GOP to hold its narrow majority in the House.
The court's conservative majority has been skeptical of considerations
of race, most recently ending affirmative action in college admissions.
Twelve years ago, the court bludgeoned another pillar of the landmark
voting law that required states with a history of racial discrimination
to get advance approval from the Justice Department or federal judges
before making election-related changes.
The court has separately given state legislatures wide berth to
gerrymander for political purposes. If the Supreme Court now weakens or
strikes down the Voting Rights Act's Section 2, states would not be
bound by any limits in how they draw electoral districts. Such a result
would be expected to lead to extreme gerrymandering by whichever party
is in power at the state level.
[to top of second column]
|

Janai Nelson, front center, president of the NAACP Legal Defense
Fund, who was arguing on behalf of a group of Black voters speaks
with the news media after departing the court, Wednesday, Oct. 15,
2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

The court's Alabama decision in 2023 led to new districts there and
in Louisiana that sent two more Black Democrats to Congress.
Now, though, the court has asked the parties to answer a fundamental
question: “Whether the state’s intentional creation of a second
majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or
Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
Louisiana and the Trump administration joined with a group of white
voters in arguing to invalidate the challenged district and make it
much harder to claim discrimination in redistricting.
The arguments led Justice Sonia Sotomayor to assert that the
administration's “bottom line is just get rid of Section 2.”
Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan disagreed and said state
lawmakers would have no incentive to get rid of every majority Black
district because doing so would create swing districts and imperil
some Republican incumbents.
In addition, Mooppan said, only 15 of the 60 Black members of the
House represent majority Black districts. “But even if you
eliminated Section 2 entirely, fully 75% of the Black congressmen in
this country are in districts that are not protected by Section 2.”
In the first arguments in the Louisiana case in March, Roberts
sounded skeptical of the second majority Black district, which last
year elected Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields. Roberts described the
district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320
kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette
and Baton Rouge areas.
The court fight over Louisiana’s congressional districts has lasted
three years.
The state’s Republican-dominated legislature drew a new
congressional map in 2022 to account for population shifts reflected
in the 2020 census. But the changes effectively maintained the
status quo of five Republican-leaning majority white districts and
one Democratic-leaning majority Black district.
Civil rights advocates won a lower-court ruling that the districts
likely discriminated against Black voters.
The state eventually drew a new map to comply with the court ruling
and protect its influential Republican lawmakers, including House
Speaker Mike Johnson. But white Louisiana voters claimed in their
separate lawsuit that race was the predominant factor driving it. A
three-judge court agreed, leading to the current high court case.
The court is expected to rule by early summer in 2026.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |