Legal Background: Section 2 & Racial Gerrymandering
- The Chairman
- 22 hours ago
- 5 min read
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)
Section 2 prohibits any voting qualification, practice, or procedure that “results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen … on account of race or color.”
Importantly, courts have long held that plaintiffs need not show intentional discrimination; an effect-based claim is sufficient.
In redistricting, a central question is whether a map “dilutes” minority voting power (i.e. minimizes their ability to elect candidates of their choice).
A foundational precedent is Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), which set out a three‑part test (often called “Gingles preconditions”) for evaluating “vote dilution” claims under Section 2:
The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a hypothetical district.
The minority group is politically cohesive.
The majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. (Wikipedia)
Later decisions have modified and clarified how courts apply those factors (and how strictly). For example:
Bartlett v. Strickland (2009) held that a minority group must constitute a numerical majority of the voting-age population in a district before Section 2 requires creation of that district. (Wikipedia)
Courts have also wrestled with how much deference map‑drawers earn, the role of partisan considerations, and the standard of proof (e.g. “preponderance,” or “likely to prevail”) in preliminary injunctions and final judgments.
Racial Gerrymandering and Constitutional Limits
Even if a map is drawn in an effort to comply with Section 2, it must pass constitutional constraints, primarily under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The key issue is when race "predominates" the line‑drawing:
If race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines (i.e. map-drawers subordinated traditional districting criteria to racial considerations), then the map must satisfy strict scrutiny — i.e., be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.
One recognized compelling interest is compliance with Section 2, but whether there is a “mismatch” or “overreach” is often litigated.
Courts also consider whether the state had a “reasonable basis” for believing it needed to draw majority-minority districts, and whether less race‑driven alternatives existed.
Thus, Section 2 claims and racial gerrymandering claims frequently interact and clash: map-drawers may argue that they needed to rely on race to comply with Section 2, while critics argue that the map uses race excessively and therefore violates constitutional protections.
The Louisiana Case: Louisiana v. Callais and Related Litigation
Louisiana is at the center of a high-stakes dispute that could reshape how Section 2 is applied, especially in redistricting.
Factual & Procedural History
2022 Map and Challenge
After the 2020 Census, Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature produced a congressional map with six districts, but only one majority-Black district, even though about one-third of the state’s population is Black. (Wikipedia)
Black voters challenged that map under Section 2, arguing it diluted their voting strength. A federal district court agreed and ordered Louisiana to adopt a remedial map with a second majority-Black district. (Center for American Progress)
The 5th Circuit affirmed that the map likely violated Section 2 and that the state must redraw. (SCOTUSblog)
Remedial Map and New Suit
In response, Louisiana passed Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), creating a second majority-Black district (District 6), stretching from Shreveport to Baton Rouge—a very large, noncompact district. (Brennan Center for Justice)
However, a new lawsuit (by “non-African American voters”) attacked the remedial map on the ground that race was the predominant factor in drawing it, rendering it a racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment. A three-judge district court agreed and struck it down. (CBS News)
The Supreme Court granted a stay and eventually agreed to hear the case under the title Louisiana v. Callais (and consolidated with Robinson v. Callais). (American Civil Liberties Union)
Supreme Court Review
Oral arguments were held on March 24, 2025. ({{meta.siteName}})
On June 27, 2025, the Court declined to issue a decision right away and ordered reargument in the next term. All but Justice Thomas joined that order. (CBS News)
The second oral argument is scheduled for October 15, 2025. (Legal Defense Fund)
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
Here are the main issues the Supreme Court is now considering in Louisiana v. Callais:
Predominance / Racial Gerrymandering
Did race predominate over traditional redistricting criteria in Louisiana’s remedial map? If so, the map must satisfy strict scrutiny. ({{meta.siteName}})
Did the court below correctly apply the “reasonable basis” test (i.e. was the legislature justified in thinking a second majority-Black district was needed)? (Brennan Center for Justice)
Strict Scrutiny and Narrow Tailoring
If the map is constitutional under Section 2, is its design narrowly tailored? Could less race‑driven alternatives have satisfied Section 2? ({{meta.siteName}})
How much latitude should courts afford to states or legislatures when drawing remedial maps (especially under court order)?
The Validity / Scope of Section 2
More radically, some briefs and planning documents suggest that the State of Louisiana is now advancing arguments against Section 2 itself, contending that forcing race-conscious redistricting violates equal protection. (Center for American Progress)
The Court asked the parties to address whether remedial maps (and Section 2 enforcement) could conflict with the 14th or 15th Amendments. (American Civil Liberties Union)
Some justices (e.g. Kavanaugh) raised during argument the idea of a “logical endpoint” beyond which Section 2 should no longer permit race-based redistricting. Critics see that as an invitation to erode Section 2’s bite. (The Guardian)
Justiciability / Political Question Arguments
The Court will consider whether the dispute is fully justiciable — i.e. whether courts should defer or refuse to adjudicate in some redistricting contexts. Some maps implicate highly technical cartography, political judgments, and might tempt claims that these are nonjusticiable. ({{meta.siteName}})
Stakes and Implications
For Louisiana: The ruling will determine whether the current map (with two majority-Black districts) survives, or whether Louisiana must redraw again.
For Section 2 broadly: This case is widely seen as threatening the continued strength of Section 2 as the remaining effective federal protection against racial vote dilution, after the 2013 decision in Shelby County gutted the preclearance requirement. (Center for American Progress)
If courts significantly limit the ability to draw race-conscious remedial maps—or rule that Section 2 itself is unconstitutional or in tension with equal protection—then many jurisdictions might evade liability in claims of vote dilution.
Some observers warn of a return to more aggressive efforts at racial gerrymandering, as states may feel emboldened if the Court narrows or weakens Section 2. (Center for American Progress)
It’s worth noting that in Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama’s map likely violated Section 2 and ordered a second majority-Black district, preserving a robust role for Section 2 enforcement. (Wikipedia) Some in Louisiana’s case argue that Milligan constrains how far the Court can backslide here.
General Legal & Voting Rights:
Louisiana-Specific & Current Case:
Broader Social & Political Themes:
