The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 27, 2024, that Louisiana's congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and ordered it struck down.
The decision limits the use of race in drawing electoral districts across the country. By voiding the map, the Court restricted the ability of states to create districts based primarily on racial demographics, potentially altering the balance of political representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
In a six-three vote [1], the Court found that race was the predominant factor in the design of the map. The ruling specifically targeted the creation of two majority-Black districts [2], stating that such an arrangement violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The majority concluded that the map exceeded the permissible scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act [3].
Legal observers have noted that the ruling significantly impacts the implementation of voting protections. One legal analyst said the decision is a blow to the Voting Rights Act and will allow states to redraw districts without the robust protections that Section 2 provides [1].
Critics of race-based redistricting welcomed the ruling. James Morrow said, "You cannot group people by race to create new constituencies. This is about as un-American as it can get" [4].
While some reports suggest the ruling weakens a central provision of the Voting Rights Act, other analyses suggest the Court stopped short of gutting Section 2 entirely [1]. Regardless, the ruling mandates that Louisiana must develop a new congressional map that does not rely on racial grouping as the primary driver for district boundaries.
“The Court ruled that Louisiana's congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
This ruling establishes a stricter judicial standard for redistricting, signaling that the Supreme Court views the use of race as a primary factor in map-drawing as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. By limiting the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court has shifted the burden onto minority groups to prove that districts are necessary without relying on racial quotas, which may reduce the number of majority-minority districts nationwide.
