Supreme Court Ruling Addresses Voting Rights Act in Louisiana Case

Why it matters locally: Nevada, like other states, will face stricter requirements when defending congressional maps against voting rights challenges under this new interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

---

The Supreme Court decided *Louisiana v. Callais*, a case concerning Louisiana's congressional map and its adherence to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The court's decision centered on the interpretation of Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, addressed claims that the state's redistricting plan violated Section 2 by diluting minority voting power. The court examined the relationship between race and partisan considerations in drawing congressional districts. The ruling stated that while evidence of intent can be considered, a violation of Section 2 requires a showing that racial considerations, rather than permissible aims, drove the state's map. The court stated its interpretation of Section 2 does not infringe on a state's prerogative to draw districts based on nonracial factors, including partisan advantage. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing the decision weakened the VRA. She described it as part of a series of cases diminishing the law's strength, including *Shelby County v. Holder* (2013) and *Brnovich v. DNC* (2021). *Shelby County v. Holder* concerned the VRA's preclearance provision, which required certain jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to obtain federal approval before implementing changes to their election laws. The court found the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance was outdated. *Brnovich v. DNC* involved challenges to Arizona voting rules under Section 2 of the VRA. The court upheld Arizona's restrictions on out-of-precinct voting and third-party ballot collection, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a disparate impact on minority voters. The *Callais* decision stipulates that plaintiffs challenging a districting map must provide an alternative map that achieves the state's objectives, including partisan advantage, at least as well as the state's map. According to the court, this requirement aligns with the principle that partisan advantage is a permissible consideration in redistricting. The court based its interpretation of Section 2 on the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote based on race. The court stated that the amendment prohibits intentional discrimination, rather than voting rules or procedures that have a racially discriminatory effect. The courts stated the need to avoid interpreting Section 2 in a way that would force states to engage in race-based discrimination, thereby potentially violating the Constitution.