By Gabby Bonds
Elm Staff Writer
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevents voter discrimination by allowing any racial minority who feels that their full right to vote has been impeded by inequitable district lines to seek judicial support.
Now, in Louisiana v. Callais, the state of Louisiana argues to the Supreme Court that redistricting based on race is unconstitutional, and that Section 2 should be reconsidered by the justices.
Louisiana’s attempt to restrict Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through the guise that it violates the constitution is akin to a direct attack on civil rights in the United States and brings into question the true value of equality that America prides itself on.
Most recently amended in 1982, the role that Section 2 plays in upholding the 15th Amendment; the right to vote unimpeded by race or color, is invaluable.
“If the court strikes down Section 2 or severely restricts it, Louisiana and other Republican-run states in the Deep South could redraw districts in ways that carve up Black communities and eliminate Democratic districts,” Harvard University law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos said to The Washington Post.
The decision of the Supreme Court to entertain Louisiana’s argument and reconsider Section 2 is a shocking demonstration of the devastating implications that misused power can have and has left many Americans with little faith in the justice system.
According to The Brennan Center for Justice, the 1982 amendment to Section 2 was immediately effective, ending discriminatory election systems in hundreds of cities, towns, and counties by the early 1990s, but the necessity of Section 2 did not stop in the 90s. In just the last decade, Section 2 has allowed for critical changes to 29 electoral maps around the country, according to The Brennan Center for Justice.
Efforts to ensure minority representation in elections and to eliminate gerrymandering throughout the United States, which continue to this day, have been hard fought and slow to progress. To rescind Section 2 would be to eliminate decades worth of progress towards Civil Rights in an instant and set the country back ages in societal progress.
“This racial gerrymandering has the ability to not just disempower and disenfranchise Black voters, but also to eliminate Black and Latino elected officials. What happens in these states impacts the entire country,” co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter Fund Cliff Albright said to NPR.
When considering the fragile control that Republicans currently have in the House of Representatives and the upcoming 2026 midterm election, the timing of Louisiana v. Callais suggests an ulterior motive.
According to NPR, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Louisiana in time for midterm elections, the Republican party has the opportunity to redraw at least 19 more voting districts for the House of Representatives and maintain their majority for the second half of President Donald Trump’s term.
The recent efforts by Trump to pressure Republican states into redistricting mid-census to maintain Republican control of the House, as well as Louisiana’s Secretary of State Nancy Landry asking the Supreme Court to rule in this case by early January 2026, both support the motive to unfairly skew electoral districts in favor of Trump.
“But many observers – and I am one of them – have been concerned about the court becoming more and more cynical about race-conscious remedies to address longstanding civil rights wrongs,” professor and associate dean at Case Western Reserve University’s law school Aita Ellis said to NPR.
The concern that the Supreme Court might prioritize the implications of their decisions in service of a political agenda, rather than unadulterated constitutionality, is one that every American, regardless of political affiliation, should share in.
Photo Caption: Southern states attempt to strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to eliminate voting protections for people of color.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons