US Supreme Court narrows Voting Rights Act Section 2 map challenges
State redistricting teams can defend maps against Section 2 challenges unless challengers prove intentional racial discrimination, and litigants cannot rely on race-based alternative maps
Change
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v Callais that congressional maps can be challenged under Voting Rights Act Section 2 only on proof of intentional racial discrimination, and that race cannot be used when proposing alternative maps.
Why it matters
Section 2 map challenges now hinge on proving lawmakers’ discriminatory intent rather than discriminatory effect, and alternative-map proposals cannot be constructed using race, constraining how plaintiffs can build and win Voting Rights Act redistricting cases.
Implications
- — Voting rights litigators bringing Voting Rights Act Section 2 redistricting cases must plead and prove intentional racial discrimination to sustain a map challenge — failure blocks Section 2 relief against maps that dilute minority voting power by effect alone.
- — Plaintiffs’ map-drawing teams in redistricting litigation must avoid using race when proposing alternative maps — race-based remedial maps face dismissal under the ruling.
- — State legislative redistricting counsel defending congressional maps can defeat Section 2 challenges by contesting proof of discriminatory intent — absent intent proof, maps become effectively immune from Section 2 challenge on racial-dilution effect alone.
Who is affected
- — Voting rights litigators bringing Voting Rights Act Section 2 redistricting cases
- — Plaintiffs’ map-drawing teams in redistricting litigation
- — State legislative redistricting counsel defending congressional maps