Supreme Court narrows voting law, lifting GOP odds of keeping House

• The Louisiana v. Callais ruling does not erase Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but it effectively neuters it. The court rewrote the test used to apply Section 2 in such a way that it can only take effect as long as protected seats don't infringe on the right of state lawmakers to draw partisan gerrymanders.

Driving the news: In a majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said that "because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

The big picture: The court effectively narrowed Section 2 of the civil rights law, which prohibited racially-discriminatory gerrymandering.

• Section 2 helped end Jim Crow laws and expanded voting protections for people of color across the South, particularly for Black Americans.

Yes, but: Some opponents of the law have said that because the 14th Amendment limits the use of race in redistricting, using Section 2 to remedy racially discriminatory maps is, in fact, racial gerrymandering.

• Partisan gerrymandering was already a shield in racial-gerrymandering cases: Lawmakers could argue they drew GOP maps, not anti-Black ones.
• The Callais decision goes further. It says partisan goals can also help protect maps against Voting Rights Act lawsuits.

Catch up quick: Louisiana has been locked in a bitter court feud over its congressional maps since 2020, with civil rights groups, lawmakers and other interested parties jockeying to implement new districts.

• Black voters, which make up roughly 30% of the state's population, successfully sued to add a second majority-Black district in Louisiana in 2022, arguing that they were underrepresented.
• Lawmakers updated their maps in response, but a group of non-Black voters sued the state after, accusing lawmakers of relying too heavily on race to create the new maps.
• A three-judge panel agreed in 2024, setting the stage for the High Court's ruling.

Zoom in: "Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it," Alito wrote.

• "Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court's §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids."

The other side: In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the majority opinion "threatens a half-century's worth of gains in voting equality."

• "Under the Court's new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power," she wrote.
• "The Callais requirements have thus laid the groundwork for the largest reduction in minority representation since the era following Reconstruction."

Worth noting: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was betting on the Supreme Court's decision to aid his own mid-decade redistricting push, assuming the high court would strike down the civil rights law before it even issued its ruling.

• The ruling doesn't erase Florida's separate ban on partisan gerrymandering.
• Unlike in other states, Florida lawmakers can't simply defend a map by saying they drew it for partisan gain — unless state courts also accept DeSantis' broader argument that the entire Fair Districts Amendment no longer applies.

What they are saying: The Voting Rights Act "was the guardrail," April Albright, of advocacy group Black Voters Matter told Axios' Chelsea Brasted in December.

• Its demise means that "there's nothing left, because most of these red states also don't have robust protections for voting rights in their own state constitutions."
  
  Go deeper: How a Supreme Court case could reshape the South's congressional representation

Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional reporting throughout.