U.S. Supreme Court Poised to Further Weaken Landmark Voting Rights Act

 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Reuters) — Nearly six decades after it was enacted to end racial discrimination in U.S. elections, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 now faces one of its most serious challenges yet.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, appears ready to weaken another key provision of the landmark civil rights law, after previously striking down a major section in 2013.

At issue is a case argued Wednesday over Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map. The justices signaled they may narrow the scope of Section 2, which prohibits voting laws or district maps that dilute the voting strength of racial minorities — even if there is no explicit proof of racist intent.

 While the court is not expected to strike down the law entirely, civil rights advocates warn that a ruling limiting Section 2 could leave the Voting Rights Act — once considered the crown jewel of the civil rights movement — largely hollow.

“If the court further weakens Section 2, states and localities with long histories of discrimination could freely draw maps that systematically silence Black, Latino, Native, and Asian American voters,” said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.

The Louisiana Case

In Louisiana, where Black residents make up roughly one-third of the population, the Republican-controlled legislature added a second majority-Black congressional district after a federal judge ruled that its previous map — containing just one — likely violated Section 2.

A group of white voters sued, arguing that the map placed too much emphasis on race and therefore violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which was ratified after the Civil War to protect the rights of formerly enslaved Black Americans.

The Trump administration sided with the white voters, proposing a new legal framework that would curb what it called “excessive consideration of race” in redistricting and grant states greater leeway to follow so-called race-neutral principles such as preserving incumbency. 

“The problem isn’t merely considering race,” Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan told the court. “The problem arises when race overrides traditional, neutral redistricting principles.”

That framework would replace the 1986 Supreme Court precedent in Thornburg v. Gingles, which established how courts determine when minority voting power has been unlawfully diminished.

Critics argue the administration’s proposal would effectively gut Section 2, making it nearly impossible for minority voters to win redistricting cases.

“Section 2 cases would still exist on paper but would be almost impossible to win,” said Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University. “It would give state legislatures free rein to entrench their power and sideline voters of color.”

Historical Context and Shifting Legal Landscape

Passed in 1965 at the urging of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Voting Rights Act outlawed discriminatory practices such as literacy tests and poll taxes used to suppress Black voters in the South.

Congress strengthened the law in 1982, adding a “results test” to Section 2 — making election laws illegal if they result in discrimination, even without proof of intent.

But in the decades since, the Supreme Court has increasingly questioned how the law is applied. In a 1995 ruling from Georgia, the court said it would apply its “most rigorous” scrutiny whenever race was the “predominant factor” in drawing political maps.

In 2013, the court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision effectively eliminated federal preclearance, a requirement that states with histories of racial discrimination get Justice Department approval before changing voting laws.

More recently, in 2023, the court struck down race-conscious college admissions, and former President Trump has made opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives a national priority — reflecting a broader ideological shift against race-based policies.

Justice Kavanaugh’s Role and Potential Outcome

In Wednesday’s arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee considered a pivotal swing vote, appeared sympathetic to the government’s proposed framework.

“I would have thought that solves a lot of the concerns you’ve identified,” Kavanaugh told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, who argued that Section 2 is unconstitutional if it mandates race-based redistricting.

Some Republicans have framed the issue as one of “colorblindness,” arguing that Section 2 has evolved into a form of “affirmative action for politicians.”

“If the court limits Section 2, it will reduce lawsuits and raise the burden of proof for challengers,” said Mark Meuser, attorney at Dhillon Law Group, which represents Republican candidates.

Voting rights groups, however, warn that such a ruling would disproportionately benefit Republicans, who hold a narrow majority in the House. Analysts estimate that weakening Section 2 could enable GOP-led states to redraw up to 19 congressional districts in their favor before the 2026 midterm elections.

The Future of Voting Rights

While civil rights advocates fear a major setback, some note that the court has surprised observers before. In 2023, the justices upheld a lower court’s finding that Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map unlawfully diluted Black voting strength.

“It’s hard to predict how the court will rule,” said the ACLU’s Brannon. “But we’ll continue to fight for fair maps with whatever tools remain.”