Newsom directs President Trump with troll posts in all caps on social media
California Governor Gavin Newsom mocks President Donald Trump in an all-caps post as conflicts over redistricting and 2028 political interests intensify.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is taking up a racial and political case in Louisiana that tests a landmark civil rights law enacted 60 years ago to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
In one of the year’s biggest lawsuits, the court on Oct. 15 will consider whether districts can be created to protect the voting rights of minorities without discriminating against voters of other races.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is intended to prevent Congressional mapmakers from diluting the votes of racial minorities by stuffing them into one district or spreading them across too many districts to exert influence.
But Louisiana argues that the zoning protections are “unenforceable and unconstitutional.”
The Justice Department under President Donald Trump similarly said that even though the provision was constitutional when it was enacted, it is not now.
A ruling along these lines could reduce the number of racial minorities holding public office at all levels of government.
And that could give Republicans an electoral boost, including in their efforts to maintain a slim House majority.
The battle continues over Louisiana’s congressional map.
The controversy arose from Louisiana’s attempt to explain population changes after the 2020 Census. The new congressional map drawn by Congress shows that only one of the six electoral districts has a black majority, even though blacks make up about a third of the population.
When a group of black voters filed a lawsuit, a judge said the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act.
But after the Republican-controlled Congress created a second-majority black district, a group of self-identified non-black voters filed a lawsuit claiming that “racial quotas” cost the state a seat in the narrowly contested Congress.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, considered the issue last term. But instead of issuing a ruling, the justices took the unusual step of calling for a second round of oral arguments that more directly jeopardizes the future of redistricting protections.
The Supreme Court previously dismantled another section of the VRA
This provision became more important after the court struck down another part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, one used to police states with a history of discrimination. The court said the restriction was “based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.”
Civil rights groups defending the law argue that the requirement to create districts that give racial minorities a reasonable opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice already takes into account the current situation.
There must be a sufficiently large and compact majority to constitute a district, and white residents must vote with enough unity to defeat a minority candidate. These conditions may change over time.
But the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund argue that the Voting Rights Act still exists in Louisiana, where it is “the only reason black voters win the electorate.”
Potential political impact
If the Supreme Court sides with Louisiana, and states still have plenty of time to act before next year’s elections, it could accelerate an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting effort spearheaded by Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Democratic voting rights groups estimate that defeating the Voting Rights Act’s protections against voter dilution could help Republicans pick up 27 additional seats. Of these, 19 seats would be gained directly by repealing protections under the Act.
Decisions in the consolidated cases Louisiana v. Calais and Robinson v. Calais are expected by the end of June.
