The Supreme Court's 2021 decision ending race-based admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina reaffirmed that individuals must be treated as individuals, not racial representatives. This principle may soon extend to voting rights, as the Court prepares to hear Louisiana v. Callais next week.
A Legal Tightrope for Louisiana Lawmakers
The case centers on Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District, a 250-mile-long gerrymandered seat created in 2022 to ensure two of the state's six districts are majority-Black, reflecting Louisiana's 30% Black population. A three-judge federal court initially ordered the state to draw a second majority-Black district, only for another panel to later rule the resulting map an unconstitutional racial classification. This legal whipsaw left state officials "damned if they did, damned if they didn't," as one filing noted.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, originally designed to combat discriminatory voting practices, was amended in 1982 to allow claims of "vote dilution" without proof of intentional discrimination. Critics argue this transformed the law into a tool for mandating racial proportionality in elected bodies, even when minority voters face no barriers to participation. In Fayette County, Tennessee, for instance, a court recently carved three majority-Black districts because no Black commissioner was elected despite a 25% Black population, despite no evidence of voting restrictions.
The Voting Rights Act's Evolving Interpretation
Defenders of the current framework contend it remains vital to prevent backsliding on voting rights. However, data shows Black voter registration and turnout in the South now match or exceed white rates, and people of color hold numerous high offices, from president to local commissioners. Chief Justice John Roberts noted in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) that "things have changed dramatically in the South", a reality opponents of racial gerrymandering argue undermines the need for proportional representation mandates.
At stake is whether the Equal Protection Clause permits governments to sort voters by race to achieve specific electoral outcomes. Opponents of Louisiana's map, including "non-African American" voters who sued, claim such gerrymandering violates the Constitution's colorblind ideals. The case also raises practical concerns: packing minority voters into singular districts can reduce their influence in surrounding areas, reinforcing racial stereotypes about voter behavior.
If the Court rules against racial proportionality requirements, it would not invalidate the entire Voting Rights Act. Intentional discrimination could still be challenged under other provisions. But it would mark a significant shift toward treating voters as individuals rather than members of racial groups, a principle the Court applied to education in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) and may now extend to the ballot box.
Edward Blum, president of the Project on Fair Representation, which filed an amicus brief in the case, has spearheaded multiple challenges to race-based policies, including the Harvard admissions case. His organization argues that racial categorization in governance "undermines the unity and equality the Civil Rights Movement sought to achieve."