What a weakened Voting Rights Act means in today's America
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Washington Bureau/Getty Images
The Supreme Court just narrowed a landmark voting law for a nation that has never been more diverse — or more divided over who gets political power.
Why it matters: The latest ruling lands in a more multiracial, more mobile country that looks nothing like it did in 1965, raising fresh questions about how voting protections apply to a rapidly evolving electorate.
Catch up quick: The court's Louisiana v. Callais ruling on Wednesday effectively narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 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.
- A weakened Section 2 means fewer federal guardrails as states redraw political power.
Zoom in: In 1965, about 85% of Americans were white. Today that share is closer to 59%, according to Census data.
- The multiracial population is one of the fastest-growing groups, surging by 276% between 2010 and 2020.
- Latino and Asian American populations have driven much of the nation's growth, reshaping political maps in states like Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
Zoom out: The American South has become the center of population growth, gaining millions of new residents from other regions.
- Metro areas in Sun Belt states are booming — often in places with histories of voting rights battles.
- That shift is increasing the political stakes of redistricting in exactly the regions where the Voting Rights Act once had its strongest bite.
What they're saying: "This decision is a profound betrayal of the legacy of the civil rights movement," Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said in a statement.
- NAACP President Derrick Johnson called the ruling "a devastating blow" and "a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system."
- Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that lower courts have interpreted Section 2 in a way that "forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids."
- Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting, wrote the decision "will set back the foundational right… of racial equality in electoral opportunity."
Yes, but: The nature of voting discrimination has changed since 1965. Proving discrimination in court has become more complex and harder to win.
- Then: Literacy tests, poll taxes and explicit racial bans.
- Now: Disputes often center on district lines, voter ID laws, polling access, tribal voting rules and administrative hurdles.
Between the lines: "It's going to take a couple days to determine, you know, how many districts ... could plausibly be changed," David Wasserman, Senior Editor & Elections Analyst for The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, tells Axios.
- "I think, realistically, we're probably talking about one to three seats for 2026, but it's not hyperbolic to call this an apocalyptic ruling for Black majority districts in 2028 in the Deep South."
What we're watching: Legal fights will likely shift to state courts, Congress and the 2026 and 2028 elections.
- "Representation for Black, Latino, Native, and other voters of color will increasingly depend on the goodwill of legislatures rather than enforceable law," Lakin said.
The bottom line: The Voting Rights Act reshaped American democracy in 1965. In 2026, the country is more diverse than ever and the rules governing its political power are narrowing.
