The future of voting rights in America hangs in the balance, and it’s not looking good. The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to deliver a devastating blow to the last remaining pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act—Section 2—which has been a crucial safeguard against racial gerrymandering aimed at weakening Black political influence. But here’s where it gets controversial: a group of self-identified “non-African-American voters” is arguing that protecting Black voters from discrimination is, in itself, discriminatory against them. Yes, you read that right. And this is the part most people miss: if the Court sides with them, it won’t just chip away at the Voting Rights Act—it will effectively dismantle it, marking the end of what many consider the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement.
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, centers on Louisiana’s congressional redistricting maps drawn after the 2020 census. Despite the state’s population being one-third Black, the initial maps included only one majority-Black district. Voters sued, and federal courts ordered Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district to comply with the Voting Rights Act. But now, the “non-African-American voters” claim this remedy violates their rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments, arguing that race-conscious redistricting discriminates against white voters. The Court appears sympathetic to this argument, raising alarms about the future of racial justice in America.
This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has targeted the Voting Rights Act. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Court gutted Section 5, which required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval for changes to voting laws. Roberts argued that racial inequality had diminished enough to render such protections unnecessary—a claim that has since been proven tragically false. In the years following Shelby, states imposed new voting restrictions, and the gap between Black and white voter participation rates widened dramatically, especially in areas previously protected by Section 5.
On Wednesday, the Court seemed determined to apply the same flawed logic to Section 2. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito suggested that racial gerrymandering is acceptable if it’s framed as partisan gerrymandering, prioritizing lawmakers’ stated intentions over the discriminatory impact on Black voters. This flies in the face of precedent and evidence, which hold that discriminatory impact—not intent—is the legal standard for racial discrimination. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a passionate advocate for civil rights, voiced her frustration, pointing out that remedies for racial discrimination are inherently tied to race because race is the root of the problem. But her colleagues seemed unmoved.
Here’s the controversial part: Louisiana’s attorney general argued that assuming Black voters would vote differently than white voters—which they overwhelmingly do in Louisiana—is an unconstitutional racial stereotype. This argument, though absurd, aligns with Roberts’ long-standing opposition to race-conscious policies. Roberts famously declared, “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” effectively dismissing any effort to address systemic racism. If the Court rules in Louisiana’s favor, it will legalize racial gerrymandering that dilutes Black voter power while outlawing race-conscious redistricting that restores it. This isn’t just bad reasoning—it’s bad faith.
The consequences are dire. If the Court strikes down Section 2, as expected, the decision will likely come in June, just months before the 2026 midterms. Experts predict this could net Republicans 19 additional House seats through racial gerrymandering. But the real loss will be for democracy itself. The Voting Rights Act didn’t just enforce the 15th Amendment—it made America’s claim to being a democracy plausible. To dismantle it is to betray the very principles it was meant to uphold.
Thought-provoking question for you: Is prioritizing so-called “colorblind” policies over addressing systemic racism truly the path to equality, or does it simply entrench historical injustices? Let’s discuss in the comments.
