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
