Supreme Court Ruling in Louisiana Case Threatens Race-Based Districts After Voting Rights Act Anniversary

Nearly 61 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, a key moment for the civil rights movement and the nation. "Every family across this great, entire, searching land will live stronger in liberty, will live more splendid in expectation, and will be prouder to be American because of the act that you have passed, that I will sign today," Johnson said.

The law aimed to remove barriers to Black voters, said Martha Jones, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University. "Slavery is abolished in 1865; in 1870, the 15th Amendment is passed, intending to guarantee to Black men the right to vote; 1920, the 19th Amendment is intended to guarantee all women the right to vote. And still, Black Americans are kept from the polls in too many places – by law, by intimidation, by violence," Jones said. "So, one thing we can say about 1965 is that people have been waiting a very long time."

People had waited and fought to end racial discrimination in voting. "Lives were lost, lives were threatened, communities were under siege," Jones said. "And Americans – Black and White – put themselves in harm's way in order to finally set fire to the feet of Lyndon Johnson, set fire to feet of Congress. And finally, the result is a Voting Rights Act."

"But to think of the Voting Rights Act as an act of Congress – or an act of Johnson's pen – is to in essence erase the blood from the page," she said. "And there is a lot of blood in that story."

That story goes on. Late last month, the Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers in Louisiana acted illegally in creating a new majority-Black congressional district. The 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais split along ideological lines and carries major implications for political power. It will make it much harder for districts drawn on racial lines to stand.

This past week, Louisiana Democrat Congressman Cleo Fields, whose district faces changes, raised concerns. "Let's be clear: Once the Supreme Court rules, it's the final judgment of the highest court of the land," Fields said on Sunday Morning. "The real issue is whether or not a person who looks like me will have the opportunity to serve in Congress, and that's what that fight has always been about."

The ruling caps years of decisions by the conservative majority under Chief Justice John Roberts. Those rulings hold that race-conscious policies in education, workplaces or voting violate the Constitution.

Hans von Spakovsky, a conservative lawyer appointed to the Federal Election Commission by President George W. Bush, called it one of a series of sound decisions. "I think this is one of a series of, frankly, good decisions by the court that is saying racial discrimination is wrong," he said.

When asked about Black Americans who view the Voting Rights Act as a tool to ensure representation rather than discrimination, von Spakovsky replied, "Yeah, well, I think they're taking the wrong view of that."

His position matches the recent majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. That opinion states that drawing election maps by race is unnecessary and unconstitutional, while doing so by politics is acceptable.

"That's part of what the Supreme Court has called the hurly-burly of politics," von Spakovsky said. "We have basically an open market where people compete with what their ideas should be. But anybody who thinks we're ever going to get gerrymandering, partisan gerrymandering entirely out, that's just not going to happen. We've had it since Elbridge Gerry, the governor in Massachusetts, did it in the early 1800s. That's where the name for it comes from."

After the ruling, Republican-controlled states moved quickly to adjust maps this year. The changes aim to help the GOP hold its narrow U.S. House majority in November.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a new congressional map into law. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down a congressional map that would have helped Democrats. On Thursday, Tennessee's Republican governor signed a new map amid protests. Critics say it will weaken the voting power of Black residents in the state.

Von Spakovsky addressed concerns that the decision could lead to fewer Black members of Congress. "Well, if they want to get someone elected … look, if they affiliate with the Republican Party, Black candidates will get elected," he said.

Do Black candidates in red states need to join the Republican Party to win? "The point of our Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act, is that everyone is guaranteed an equal opportunity to vote," von Spakovsky said. "They are not guaranteed success in the candidates that they think should be elected."

Maryland Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, called the ruling a total breakdown. "I believe that this decision represents the complete collapse of the Roberts Court into partisan political activity," he said. "There's no other way for me to understand what just happened other than they, too, are trying to bail out Donald Trump from all of his policy catastrophes of this term by making it possible for him to win districts."

"They've basically said it's unconstitutional to deliberately create a majority African-American, or majority Hispanic, district, although you can create all the majority White districts you want. That's just considered the norm," Raskin said.

The constitutional law professor and House Democrat rejected the idea that the court acts conservatively. "No, it's got nothing to do with conservatism. It's about partisan determination to give Donald Trump and the GOP a majority the best they can," he said.

That's the court's goal? "Absolutely. No doubt in my mind," Raskin replied. "Because there's no other way of explaining these decisions that are not rooted in the text of the Constitution, much less the Voting Rights Act. They totally reversed the plain meaning of the Voting Rights Act. And they are rushing these things to get done before the 2026 elections."

As the decision disrupts elections this year, Martha Jones called it the latest step in America's struggle with race and the Constitution.

"As a historian, my counsel to judges is that history will be the judge," she said. "Part of what we're doing in this moment is making a record. And that's part of what the Supreme Court does for us, is make a record of what has happened here. Only history will tell us in some sense what it meant, what its long-term consequences were – for Black Americans, yes, but for American democracy as well. I think anyone who is a party to what is unfolding at the Court now is wise to be humbled. Because they won't always control the narrative. But history writers will."