In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court addressed how far a state may go in using race to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when drawing congressional districts.
The case arose after Louisiana adopted SB8, a congressional map adding a second majority-minority district. The State drew the new district after earlier litigation suggested that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act likely required an additional majority-Black district. The new map was then challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that SB8 violated the Equal Protection Clause. The majority held that Section 2 did not require Louisiana to create the additional majority-minority district, so Voting Rights Act compliance could not justify the State’s race-conscious districting.
The Court did not strike down Section 2, but it significantly revised how vote-dilution claims will be evaluated. Plaintiffs must now separate race from politics and show that proposed alternative maps satisfy the State’s legitimate districting goals.
The decision is significant because it narrows when Section 2 can justify the use of race in drawing district lines.
First & Fourteenth partner, Chris Murray, joined CBS Los Angeles to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision.
Watch here: Constitutional Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling on Louisiana Voting Map