Reactions Mixed As Supreme Court Decision May Rewrite the Rules for All Elections

The Supreme Court just heard a high-stakes redistricting fight out of Louisiana that could reset how every state in America draws political maps.

CBS News contributor Jessica Levinson framed the core question plainly: how much, if at all, can states consider race when drawing district lines, and at what point does that consideration clash with the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or the Fifteenth Amendment’s protections against vote dilution? 

She underscored that this isn’t just a Louisiana story; it’s a national rule-setting moment that will touch every state that draws district maps.

CBS reporter Kati Weis added that people on the ground in Louisiana are “on pins and needles,” because the outcome could shape representation far beyond state borders. Activists pushing for a second majority-Black congressional district argue that with Black residents comprising roughly a third of the state, two such districts are warranted to ensure meaningful electoral opportunities. 

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill counters that “the Constitution has told us to not sort people by race,” and that courts have repeatedly echoed that principle.

That tension – between remedying discrimination and drawing lines “colorblind” – is the fight now at the Supreme Court.

Inside The Louisiana Fight

Here’s the backdrop, as explained by Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News: Louisiana initially had one majority-Black district. A lower court said that likely violated federal law and ordered a map with two. Louisiana complied – then switched sides and joined a group of self-described non-Black voters challenging the new map as unconstitutional racial sorting.

According to Yanis, the case now tees up a sweeping question: does creating majority-minority districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act itself violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s command of equal protection? That’s a collision of two Civil War-era amendments—the Fourteenth and Fifteenth – now filtered through modern jurisprudence.

CBS News identified the plaintiffs as non-Black voters, including a named plaintiff who previously told state officials that race-based line-drawing dilutes his voice. Meanwhile, NAACP Louisiana President Michael McClanahan summed up supporters’ math: “A third of six is two.” In his view, two majority-Black districts reflect basic representational fairness.

My take: both sides are arguing equality, but they’re using different yardsticks—one focused on race-neutral process, the other on race-conscious outcomes needed to remedy entrenched discrimination. The Court’s answer will decide which yardstick governs.

The High-Stakes Legal Questions

Levinson noted that the justices could keep things largely as they are – allowing race to be one factor so long as it doesn’t predominate – or they could rewrite the standard and sharply limit any race-conscious districting. 

She flagged a potential political consequence if race becomes essentially off-limits: political scientists she’s reviewed predict a “big boon for Republicans,” potentially locking in a durable House majority for years.

During oral argument in Robinson v. Callais and Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed the key divide. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, she said, is a tool for identifying when minorities lack equal electoral opportunity. The remedy – perhaps another majority-minority district, perhaps not – comes after that finding. 

So when states act to fix a proven Section 2 problem, she asked, why isn’t that a “compelling state interest”? At one point she emphasized, “The answer is obviously yes” regarding a state’s interest in remedying race-based vote dilution.

That back-and-forth matters. If the Court views Section 2 compliance as a compelling interest, race-conscious remedies can survive constitutional scrutiny. If not, most modern Voting Rights Act remedies could be on thin ice.

Inside The Oral Argument

Yanis reported that several conservative justices sounded open to reining in Section 2 as it’s been applied, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed intrigued by a narrower path: keep Section 2, but let states defend maps by saying their choices were driven by partisan goals rather than race. 

That’s significant because the Court has already said federal courts can’t police partisan gerrymandering. If partisan motives become a safe harbor, it could be harder to challenge maps that disproportionately weaken minority voting power.

On the other side, the Court’s liberals pushed back. As Yanis summarized, Justice Elena Kagan stressed that race enters the picture here to remedy a proven violation – not to create new ones. 

And in the exchange captured on video, Justice Jackson methodically separated the diagnostic use of Section 2 (finding vote dilution) from the remedial step (crafting a fix), challenging the notion that any race-conscious remedy is constitutionally suspect.

In plain English: the conservatives floated a “colorblind” reading that treats race-based line-drawing as presumptively forbidden, while the liberals argued that you can’t cure discrimination you refuse to see.

My read from the questioning: a majority appears interested in tightening the leash on race-conscious remedies – even if it doesn’t eliminate Section 2 outright. Watch for a ruling that narrows when and how race can be used, and that invites states to justify their lines as politics, not race.

Why This Could Reshape Elections

Levinson warned that changing the legal test would reverberate across every state. If mapmakers can’t account for race, even to avoid unlawful vote dilution, fewer districts may emerge where minority voters can elect candidates of their choice. Politically, that likely shifts seats in key states and could “lock in a Republican majority in the House of Representatives for years, maybe decades.”

Yanis added another likely effect: if states can shield their maps by citing partisan objectives, it creates a powerful defense for maps that correlate with race, especially in places where voting is heavily polarized by race. And because federal courts won’t police partisan gerrymanders, this becomes a one-way ratchet.

That doesn’t mean the Voting Rights Act disappears. But it does mean that proving a Section 2 violation – and securing a race-conscious remedy – could become significantly harder.

The Court is poised to draw a brighter constitutional line that favors race-neutral mapmaking on paper – even if, on the ground, political incentives reproduce many of the same divides. 

The risk is that a formal “colorblind” rule may obscure very real, measurable racial vote dilution where party and race overlap.

What Happens Next

Kati Weis cautioned that a decision won’t arrive for months, but stakeholders in Louisiana are already bracing for impact. Jessica Levinson expects the Court to change the law “on the ground,” given the unusual step of re-arguing and the specific questions the justices teed up.

If the Court endorses a stricter test, states may redraw maps with far less attention to racial considerations – and more comfort citing partisan goals. If the Court affirms the traditional framework, states will still be able to consider race to avoid vote dilution, so long as it doesn’t predominate.

Either way, the ruling will set the playbook for the 2026 midterms and beyond. It will either preserve or pare back the central way Section 2 has been enforced since the 1980s.

One more point worth heeding from Jared Yanis: this isn’t just an election-law case. It’s about the constitutional ground rules that, ultimately, shape every other right we argue about – including the Second Amendment. The composition of legislative bodies determines which laws get written – and which ones get repealed.

Revisiting the meaning of Race and Representation

From CBS News’ Jessica Levinson and Kati Weis, to the in-court exchange with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, to analysis from Jared Yanis, the message is the same: the Supreme Court isn’t just reviewing a map; it’s revisiting the meaning of race and representation in American law.

If the justices adopt a stricter “colorblind” approach, Section 2 cases will be harder to win, and states will have broader latitude to claim partisan intent while drawing lines that correlate with race. 

If the Court preserves space for race-conscious remedies tied to proven dilution, the current Voting Rights Act framework survives – though likely with clarified limits.

My view: however the Court rules, the decision will echo for a decade. It will influence who gets a real chance to elect candidates of their choice – and, by extension, which policies define the next era of American governance.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.