USA - 2026 Congressional Election USA - Voting Rights Act Resources

This “act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution” was signed into law 95 years after the amendment was ratified. In those years, African Americans in the South faced tremendous obstacles to voting, including poll taxes, literacy tests, and other bureaucratic restrictions to deny them the right to vote. They also risked harassment, intimidation, economic reprisals, and physical violence when they tried to register or vote. As a result, African-American voter registration was limited, along with political power.

In 1964, numerous peaceful demonstrations were organized by Civil Rights leaders, and the considerable violence they were met with brought renewed attention to the issue of voting rights. The murder of voting-rights activists in Mississippi and the attack by white state troopers on peaceful marchers in Selma, Alabama, gained national attention and persuaded President Johnson and Congress to initiate meaningful and effective national voting rights legislation. The combination of public revulsion to the violence and Johnson's political skills stimulated Congress to pass the voting rights bill on August 5, 1965.

The legislation, which President Johnson signed into law the next day, outlawed literacy tests and provided for the appointment of federal examiners (with the power to register qualified citizens to vote) in those jurisdictions that were "covered" according to a formula provided in the statute. In addition, Section 5 of the act required covered jurisdictions to obtain "preclearance" from either the District Court for the District of Columbia or the U.S. Attorney General for any new voting practices and procedures. Section 2, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition of the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. The use of poll taxes in national elections had been abolished by the 24th amendment (1964) to the Constitution; the Voting Rights Act directed the Attorney General to challenge the use of poll taxes in state and local elections. In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War; and it was immediately challenged in the courts. Between 1965 and 1969, the Supreme Court issued several key decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 and affirming the broad range of voting practices for which preclearance was required. [See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966) and Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969)]  In 2013, the Court struck down a key provision of the act involving federal oversight of voting rules in nine states.

The Voting Rights Act had an immediate impact. By the end of 1965, a quarter of a million new Black voters had been registered, one-third by federal examiners. By the end of 1966, only four out of 13 southern states had fewer than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was readopted and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982.

The Supreme Court and the Future of Section

The Supreme Court's consideration of Louisiana v. Callais represents a potentially transformative moment in American voting rights law, with implications that could reshape congressional representation and minority political power for generations. While the Court appears poised to weaken rather than eliminate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act entirely, even a partial dismantling of this cornerstone civil rights protection could fundamentally alter the political landscape ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and beyond.

At the heart of this case lies a fundamental tension in American democracy: how to balance the constitutional prohibition against racial classifications with the practical need to prevent the dilution of minority voting strength. Louisiana's congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district in response to Section 2 requirements, has been challenged by non-Black voters who argue it constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This challenge forces the Court to reckon with whether race-conscious remedies designed to ensure fair representation can coexist with constitutional equal protection principles, or whether they have become, in the eyes of some justices, an outdated relic of a different era.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has served since 1965 as a nationwide, permanent safeguard against voting practices that discriminate based on race. Unlike the preclearance requirements of Section 5 that were struck down in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, Section 2 applies universally and allows challenges to be brought after discriminatory practices are implemented. In the redistricting context, Section 2 has been interpreted to prevent states from drawing maps that dilute minority voting power, often requiring the creation of "opportunity districts" where minority communities can elect their preferred representatives. These districts have been instrumental in diversifying Congress and state legislatures, providing pathways to power for Black, Latino, and other minority candidates who might otherwise be submerged in majority-white districts designed to minimize their electoral influence.

The Conservative Majority's Skepticism

During oral arguments, the Court's conservative majority displayed considerable skepticism toward race-conscious redistricting, with several justices questioning whether such remedies should have an endpoint and whether they conflict with the Constitution's equal protection clause. This skepticism reflects a broader conservative legal philosophy that views race-conscious government action with deep suspicion, even when designed to remedy historical discrimination or prevent ongoing dilution of minority voting strength. Some justices appeared receptive to arguments that Section 2, as currently applied, forces states into an impossible position where they must consider race to comply with the VRA but simultaneously risk violating the Constitution's equal protection guarantee if they do so.

The Trump administration's Justice Department added fuel to this fire by proposing a dramatically stricter standard for proving Section 2 violations. Critics of this proposal argue it would effectively gut the law by making it nearly impossible for plaintiffs to successfully challenge discriminatory redistricting. Under such a heightened standard, states could potentially draw maps that fragment minority communities and pack them into fewer districts without facing successful legal challenges, so long as they could articulate some race-neutral justification for their decisions.

Political Ramifications and the 2026 Landscape

The timing of any ruling in this case carries enormous political significance. A decision is anticipated in 2026, potentially arriving just as states prepare for the next round of redistricting following the census or as congressional maps are being litigated. If the Court weakens Section 2 substantially, Republicans could gain a strategic advantage in redrawing districts across states where they control the redistricting process. Political analysts have suggested this could translate into significant House seat gains for Republicans during the 2026 midterm elections, potentially enough to affect control of the chamber or solidify an existing majority.

The impact would likely be felt most acutely across the South, where demographic changes have created opportunities for minority-majority districts in states like Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. These districts have enabled the election of Black representatives in regions where historical discrimination and continued voting patterns might otherwise make such representation impossible. If Section 2 protections are weakened, states could redraw these districts to dilute minority voting strength, potentially threatening the seats of both newly elected and established members of Congress from minority communities. The ripple effects would extend beyond individual seats to affect the overall diversity of congressional representation and the ability of minority communities to elect representatives who understand and advocate for their specific concerns.

The Broader Architecture of Voting Rights

Understanding Louisiana v. Callais requires situating it within the larger story of voting rights erosion over the past decade. The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder eliminated the preclearance requirement that had forced jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their election laws. That decision opened the floodgates to new voting restrictions and redistricting schemes that would have previously faced federal scrutiny before implementation. Section 2 became, by default, the primary remaining tool for challenging discriminatory voting practices, shifting the burden from prevention to after-the-fact litigation.

Now, with Section 2 itself under threat, civil rights advocates worry about the near-complete dismantling of federal voting rights protections that were hard-won during the Civil Rights Movement. Without robust Section 2 enforcement, states would have virtually unchecked authority to draw districts as they see fit, limited only by vague constitutional standards that have proven difficult to enforce and increasingly narrow interpretations of what constitutes impermissible racial discrimination.

The competing interpretations of Section 2 at play in this case reflect fundamentally different visions of racial progress and government responsibility. Supporters of strong Section 2 enforcement argue that ongoing disparities in political representation, combined with persistent patterns of racially polarized voting in many regions, demonstrate the continued necessity of these protections. They point to evidence that when Section 2 constraints are removed, minority voting strength tends to be diluted through techniques like packing (concentrating minority voters into as few districts as possible) and cracking (fragmenting minority communities across multiple districts to prevent them from forming majorities anywhere).

Opponents, however, contend that race-conscious redistricting has become an outdated approach that itself perpetuates racial divisions and violates principles of colorblind governance. They argue that increasing diversity and the election of minority candidates in various contexts demonstrate that such protections are no longer necessary, and that requiring consideration of race in redistricting forces states into the very kind of racial classification that the Constitution's equal protection clause was designed to prevent.

The Court's eventual decision will determine not just the fate of Louisiana's congressional map, but the broader question of whether the federal government retains meaningful authority to prevent the dilution of minority voting power through redistricting. A ruling that substantially weakens Section 2 would represent perhaps the most significant rollback of voting rights protections since the Reconstruction era ended, fundamentally altering the balance of power between states and the federal government in ensuring electoral fairness. Whatever the Court decides, the ramifications will extend far beyond legal doctrine to shape the practical reality of political representation and power for minority communities across the nation.