Overview: The US Supreme Court is currently hearing a case, Louisiana v. Callais, which could potentially undermine Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case is focused on whether Section 2 can be used to prevent white voters from being overrepresented in congressional maps. The Voting Rights Act has been under attack since its inception, and the most significant blow to the law came in 2013 when the Supreme Court gutted Section 5 of the VRA. Many fear that if the race-based remedies of Section 2 are ended, it would be catastrophic for Black voters.
S.E. Williams
These are troubled times. With the constant screech of federal dysfunction filling the air like a chorus of cicadas, some may have missed the brilliant and compelling argument of longtime civil rights attorney Janai Nelson before the U.S. Supreme Court (The Court) on Thursday, October 16. Nelson is the current director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Education Fund. During the hearing, Nelson leveraged her years of experience in the arena of civil rights to argue for the continuation of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) in the case Louisiana v. Callais.
This case is focused on whether Section 2 of the VRA can be used to prevent white voters from being overrepresented in congressional maps. There are justifiable and growing concerns this case could drastically undermine this Section of the VRA by shifting the focus of the law from preventing potential discriminatory outcomes to intentional discrimination by weakening or eliminating existing protections against racial gerrymandering.
The VRA has remained under attack by many on the right since it was codified into law in 1965. The most devastating blow to the law, however, came as backlash against the perceived political progress made by African Americans, and thus the nation, with the election of America’s first Black president, Barack Obama in November 2008. In many ways this victory was made possible due to the protections of the VRA. Obama took office in January 2009, served two successive terms and today, remains popular among Americans. A recent poll by Marquette University shows former President Obama with a 57% favorable rating among respondents.
“I don’t know how my mother walked her troubles down. I don’t know how my father stood his ground I don’t know how my people survived slavery. I do remember, that’s why I believe. . .”
Sweet Honey in the Rock
Due to staunch political stonewalling, however, although Obama’s election marked political racial progress for the nation and his signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, provided healthcare to millions, overall his presidency yielded limited progress as it relates to equity, economic parity, or major criminal justice reform for Black Americans. It did however, create a significant backlash by those opposed to any political progress by Blacks. This was clearly evidenced when The Court gutted Section 5 of the VRA during his term. Section 5 was the most significant and powerful provision of the VRA–it required preclearance.
In 2013, The Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that the formula used for preclearance in sixteen states was unconstitutional. Preclearance required the states, counties and townships identified in Section 5, to submit any redistricting plans to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for preclearance before implementation.
With the destruction of Section 5 of the VRA, many looked to Section 2 of the Act as the last fragile bulwark against the total annihilation of the hard-fought gains for full citizenship via the franchise waged by Blacks and others. These gains were paid for with the blood of our ancestors and those who fought with us in the long and deadly battle for equal access to the ballot.
Jurisdictions Formerly Covered by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Section 2 “prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in the Act.” Unlike Section 5, Section 2’s rule against discrimination in voting applies “nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”
In her oral arguments, Nelson emphasized that Section 2 is focused on whether voting maps produce discriminatory outcomes, that it is not proof of racist intent and that Louisiana’s previous maps diluted Black voting power that clearly violated that standard.
She argued that in a nearly identical case in 2023, Allen v. Milligan, The Court required Alabama to add a second majority-Black district. She further stressed that if the race-based remedies of Section 2 are ended, it would be catastrophic for Black voters. She further noted how such a result would morph the 15th Amendment into a “mere parchment promise.”
In his counter argument, Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga declared Louisiana was not discriminating on the basis of race but instead intended to discriminate based on political party.
Court watchers warn that based on Chief Justice John Roberts posturing during the oral arguments that there should be an end point to these protections, it appears The Court is poised to require proof of intentional discrimination rather than placing the focus on “discriminatory outcomes.” If this proves true, it would basically render Section 2 useless. Roberts also questioned how long such protections like those sanctioned in the VRA should persist? This leaves many of us wondering whether the outcome of the 2024 Presidential Election and the demographic analysis of who voted for Trump, will provide cover for further destruction of the VRA as it relates to Section 2? Some have pointed to PEW Research data showing Republican voters were more racially and ethnically diverse in 2024 than at any point in the last 60 years as proof the VRA has served its purpose.
As we grapple with what to do with a nation in decline, it is clear we must consider and deploy new strategies to shore up our rights and sustain our democracy. As we continue looking to leaders of the Democratic Party to plot and steer a way forward out of the current political dilemma, it becomes more apparent than ever before that Trump and his minions are executing asymmetrical warfare against the citizens of this country, especially in relation to minorities; while congressional leaders of the Democratic Party continue to drag along in response with the same old “tried and failed strategies.” News alert––those strategies are not working or protecting Black and Brown people. It is time for new, more aggressive actions to stop the dismantling of America.
One example of such actions is California’s Proposition 50. It was a bold call by CA Governor Gavin Newsom to push for the November 4 Special Election and put it before the voters. Be sure to Vote YES in support of this initiative seeking to redraw the state’s congressional districts to help offset the redistricting work Trump has demanded some Republican governors to do that will result in gerrymandering congressional seats to favor Republicans in the 2026 Mid-Term Election.
Democratic leaders in Congress cannot keep playing by the rules while Republicans burn the rulebook, the bookshelf, the room, and the house that held it all. The time for polite politics is over. If Democrats don’t match urgency with courage, the fight for democracy will be lost well before the next election cycle is in full swing.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I’m keeping it real.