you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.

The Supreme Court’s decision is louisiana vs curry It represents a seismic shift in civil rights and election law. The court rewrote and watered down key protections in the Voting Rights Act, ruling that goals such as partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection can justify the creation of electoral maps that weaken the political power of minority voters. As is the case with many recent Supreme Court decisions that limit federal civil rights protections, one of the byproducts is that chalice It will engulf state courts in a new wave of legal and political battles.

Until then chalicethe Voting Rights Act’s anti-discrimination protections functioned in part as a constraint on states that were free to pursue partisan advantage in drawing electoral maps. no longer. Although we are already well into the midterm election cycle, several Republican-controlled states in the South, including Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee, are reacting quickly to the decision and seeking to assemble more extreme gerrymanders. There will likely be more such efforts at both the state and local level after the midterm elections, including quick-fix efforts to pass gerrymandering that favors Democrats.

Going forward, legal constraints on these attempts to create new maps will be set by state law (unless new action is taken by Congress). These may include state constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering and other state requirements, such as the obligation for districts to maintain communities of interest. State law would also regulate the mapping process, including whether states use independent redistricting commissions and when and how mid-decade redistricting changes are allowed.

The first post-post wave is unlikely to see many judicial restrictions.chalice gerrymander. In Florida, the state constitution prohibits drawing districts that favor incumbents or political parties, and the Florida Supreme Court has previously enforced that provision to block gerrymandered maps. Plaintiffs are now citing this case law to challenge Florida’s new congressional map. However, the composition of state high courts has shifted sharply to the right since the earlier ruling, and the court has repeatedly overturned past precedent, leaving it unclear what impact these restrictions will have today.

Additionally, eight state supreme courts have upheld state constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering, but only two are in the South: Florida and Kentucky. In North Carolina, the state Supreme Court struck down a Republican gerrymander, but reversed when Republicans gained a majority on the court, ultimately ruling that partisan gerrymandering claims were unjustified.

In the medium to long term, the story is even more complex and uncertain. North Carolina Supreme Court elections in 2026 and 2028 could once again change the composition of the court, raising the possibility of reconsidering precedent. Georgia, a purple state that has largely avoided major judicial elections, could become a new battleground. (Georgia has a state supreme court election on May 19th, which will be an early test).

States or voters may also pursue amendments to their state constitutions to make gerrymandering easier (or harder) through ballot initiatives. State courts not only interpret the scope of passed amendments, but also evaluate the legality of measures placed on the ballot. In Virginia, the state’s high court is considering whether to block the state’s recent redistricting reforms, which challengers argue do not meet the required legal process.

It also remains to be seen how state supreme courts across the country, including courts that have previously set limits on partisan gerrymandering, will respond to an increasingly glove-less approach in the wake of the case. chalice. Judges are likely to face significant political pressure to greenlight the new map. In recent years, state legislatures have repeatedly targeted courts in response to partisan gerrymandering. This year, the Utah Legislature added two seats to the state Supreme Court after giving the green light to redraw maps to undo gerrymandering.

A final question is what state laws can do to fill the rights gap left by the Supreme Court. chalice. For example, state constitutions themselves can protect against discrimination, and 10 states have already adopted their own voting rights laws. As a legal issue, chalice The constitutionality of such a law was not reached. However, the court’s analysis was based on equal protection theory, and it is highly questionable that race was intentionally used in determining electoral districts.

While the use of race-neutral remedies may be on stronger footing, it is also possible that the Supreme Court may take a backseat to national policies aimed at addressing racial disparities in elections. It is also unclear how well such remedies would address concerns of underrepresentation due to racially polarized voting, a key element of the Voting Rights Act’s anti-discrimination analysis. chalice With undercut. To date, constitutional challenges to the state’s voting rights law have been unsuccessful. However, new challenges are almost certain to arise in the aftermath of the crisis. chalice.

Stepping back and ensuring fair representation for all voters is a daunting but urgent task.chalice. There is a clear need for uniform national rules to protect voting rights and limit partisan gerrymandering. But until that happens, the battle for fair representation will be waged state by state.

Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief State Court Report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Recommended quote: Alicia Bannon the aftermath of chalice, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 7, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/aftermath-callais

In March, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down part of a 2022 state law that would have made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters and the NAACP to conduct voter registration efforts.

court of Missouri v. League of Women Voters of the States The court held that the provisions at issue restricted core political speech and triggered the standard rigorous tests courts use to analyze laws that threaten the most fundamental rights. In doing so, it became the latest state high court to refuse to apply a “relatively weak” federal test for evaluating laws that burden voting rights. anderson burdick. Other state courts have also held that voting restrictions must undergo strict scrutiny, but have done so by holding that the right to vote is fundamental. Taken together, these decisions provide an illustrative path to vindicating the right to vote in state court.

In the final week of the 2022 legislative session, the Missouri General Assembly passed HB 1878, which includes major changes to state election law. The bill prohibited compensation from being paid to individuals who “solicise” to apply to register to vote. Requires individuals who “solicit” more than 10 people to register to vote to register with the state. Required such individuals to register as Missouri voters over the age of 18. It prohibited anyone from “soliciting anyone to obtain an absentee ballot application,” without defining the word “soliciting.” These prohibitions were backed by severe criminal penalties. (Another lawsuit challenged the law’s strict voter ID provisions, and the state Supreme Court ruled that groups challenging that part of the law had no standing to sue.)

The Missouri League of Women Voters and the Missouri NAACP filed suit over registration rules and a prohibition on “soliciting” voters to fill out voting applications. A state court found the provision violated state constitutional speech protections, saying it “contradicts the core tenets of free speech.” The state appealed to the Supreme Court. (In Missouri, appeals in cases regarding whether a state law is valid go directly to the state high court.)

The state argued on appeal that the provision at issue applied to conduct, not speech, “the solicitation of voter registration or absentee ballot requests,” and there were no restrictions on “the ability to induce voters to register or vote absentee.” Laws restricting speech must withstand intense scrutiny. Under this test, a state would need to show by the least restrictive means possible that the provision furthers a compelling interest. Instead, the state argued that the court should apply the law. anderson burdick Standards developed in two 1983 U.S. Supreme Court cases Anderson vs. Celebrese and in 1992 Burdick v. Takushi — regularly used by federal courts to evaluate voting restrictions. The federal test balances the burden on voters and the regulatory interests of states. Because voters often face significant empirical hurdles to demonstrate a law’s negative impact, regulations are analyzed from the following perspectives: anderson burdick Stand frequently.

Even though the law regulated speech, the state argued that it nonetheless targeted aspects of the state’s election process, warranting a review under the law. anderson burdick test. The states argued that the provisions at issue meet that test because they advance the compelling interests of combating fraud and maintaining election integrity and impose a “minimal burden” on the right to vote. The state’s brief makes no argument as to whether the provision would withstand scrutiny.

The court rejected the state’s argument, adopting a broad definition of “solicitation” that includes encouraging potential voters to register. Accordingly, the court held that the provision in question was not intended to regulate the electoral process, but rather to regulate political expression, which is subject to free speech protections. Writing for the majority, Justice Mary R. Russell explained that the speech in question urging people to register to vote “is not given on the ballot, at the polling place, or even within the voting process, because the purpose of the speech is to get people to register to vote, and that must occur long before the election.”

Opinions cited Meyer vs. Granta U.S. Supreme Court case striking down a Colorado law banning payments to people distributing ballot initiative petitions. There, the court applied strict scrutiny and held that the circulation of initiative petitions amounted to core political speech. “Encouraging others to vote is pure speech and, as a core First Amendment activity, is entitled to the same protections as circulating an initiative petition,” Russell wrote. “The debate about whether to register to vote and participate in the democratic process is a matter of public concern.”

Regarding the regulation of speech, the court stated as follows: anderson burdick It did not apply to the impugned provisions. In return, they must endure intense scrutiny. Although the court did not go so far as to raise the issue, anderson burdick In the analysis itself, it reflexively refused to align itself with the federal court, choosing instead to critically examine the terms of the case.

Under rigorous scrutiny, the court held that even if the state’s compelling interest in “protecting election integrity and preventing voter fraud” was legitimate, the state had not been able to show that the challenged provisions strictly conformed to the supposed legitimate reasons for preventing voter fraud. For example, the law required anyone soliciting voter registration to be a registered Missouri voter and to be at least 18 years old. But the state was unable to show why it required the person to: voters — more than just resident — referred to the alleged goal of “credibility” for lawyers.

A dissenting opinion written by Judge Ginger K. Gooch agreed with the state that the law’s use of the word “solicitation” applied only to the act of collecting voter registration applications and that the affected activity was conduct, not speech.

Missouri Supreme Court is not the first state high court to deny application Anderson Burdick. For example, the Washington Supreme Court last year explicitly refused to uphold a signature verification process for mail-in ballots. anderson burdick It means “ambiguous and unclear.” Instead, in court, Vet Voice Foundation vs. Hobbslaws that “impose heavy burdens” on the right to vote “are subject to appropriately intense scrutiny.” (The Brennan Center has filed an amicus brief asking the court to apply strict scrutiny to address the burden on fundamental voting rights.)

At a time when multiple federal courts have backed away from protecting voting rights, the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision suggests a different approach. Whether it’s because of the burden these laws place on speech or because voting itself is a fundamental right, applying strict oversight to voting laws allows state courts to advance people’s right to vote even when federal courts won’t.

Justin Lamb is a consultant in the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program.

Recommended quote: Justin Lam Missouri High Court decision offers lessons for advancing voting rightsSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 5, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/missouri-high-court-decision-offers-lessons-about-advancing-voting-rights