Supreme Court takes up GOP-led challenge to Voting Rights Act that could affect control of Congress

[spanone]

Supreme Court takes up GOP-led challenge to Voting Rights Act that could affect control of Congress

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up a major Republican-led challenge to the Voting Rights Act, the centerpiece legislation of the Civil Rights Movement, that could gut a key provision of the law that prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting.

The justices on Wednesday are hearing arguments for the second time in a case over Louisiana’s congressional map, which has two majority Black districts. A ruling for the state could open the door for legislatures to redraw congressional maps across the South, potentially boosting Republican electoral prospects by eliminating majority Black and Latino seats that tend to favor Democrats.

A mid-decade battle over congressional redistricting already is playing out across the nation, after President Donald Trump began urging Texas and other Republican-controlled states to redraw their lines to make it easier for the GOP to hold its narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The court’s conservative majority has been skeptical of considerations of race, most recently ending affirmative action in college admissions. Twelve years ago, the court took a sledgehammer to another pillar of the landmark voting law that required states with a history of racial discrimination to get approval in advance from the Justice Department or federal judges before making election-related changes.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-voting-rights-louisiana-race-963c002fcb8a35afe36b2e14111cb88e

[Bettie]

1. Is this where they rule that

the only voting rights that count are white men's?

ETA: Wait...."originalism" would mean only white male landowners.

So, not many of us would still be allowed to vote, since I'm certain there would be a minimum amount of land owned ruling. Heck, even farmers lease a lot of their land.

[blm]

2. Young Republican leaders chat group is EVIDENCE that racism persists

and has even become more widespread within state governing bodies and personnel. They represent the GOP present and future.

I hope the lawyers arguing the case use it to the fullest extent.

[kimbutgar]

3. Then Clarence Thomas should also lose his right to vote if he rules in their favor!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Deadline Legal Blog-The Voting Rights Act is at further risk as the Roberts Court hears Louisiana map appeal

The court will hear oral argument Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could further gut the landmark law that the court has already weakened.

MSNBC: The Voting Rights Act is at further risk as the Roberts Court hears Louisiana map appeal: The court will hear oral argument Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could further gut the landmark law that the court has already weakened. www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...

— (@jwwcan.bsky.social) 2025-10-15T14:10:59.334Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-supreme-louisiana-map-redistricting-rcna237637

While we rightly pay attention to how the Supreme Court is empowering President Donald Trump and his administration, the justices will hold a hearing Wednesday that highlights the Roberts Court’s priorities that predate Trump and will echo long after he leaves office.

Those priorities surface in the appeal, called Callais, with the question lurking in the background of whether the Constitution is “colorblind.” Though it isn’t the direct legal question in the case, it’s a notion that Chief Justice John Roberts and his Republican-appointed colleagues have embraced, notably in the Harvard case that gutted affirmative action in 2023. The Callais appeal raises the prospect of the court cutting out the remaining pillar of the landmark Voting Rights Act on similar grounds. The result could shape future U.S. elections and further help Republicans’ electoral prospects......

Colorblindness
Following the Roberts-led court’s hollowing out of another part of the Voting Rights Act in the 2013 Shelby County case, the remaining safeguard implicated by Callais is Section 2, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices or procedures.

The parties present opposing views on whether taking race into account when drawing districts can be necessary to realize the law’s promise or is necessarily anathema to the Constitution in 2025.

“Section 2 authorizes race-conscious remedies only where, when, and to the extent required to respond to a ‘regrettable reality’ of ongoing unequal electoral opportunity based on race,” lawyers representing Black voters wrote to the justices ahead of the hearing. Removing that section’s protections in Louisiana “will not end discrimination there or lead to a race-blind society, but it may well lead to a severe decrease in minority representation at all levels of government in many parts of the country,” they wrote.

Meanwhile, lawyers for Louisiana countered that the “invidious classifications underlying race-based redistricting present the last significant battle in defense of our ‘color blind’ Constitution.” They called the battle an “easy” one, citing the court’s statement in the Harvard affirmative action case that eliminating racial discrimination “means eliminating all of it.” The state said that means “no quarter for race-based redistricting.”

I am nervous. I remember Roberts gutting the Voting Rights Act in his Shelby County opinion where Roberts claimed that all racial discrimination had ended and so the Voting Rights Act was no longer needed.

[spanone]

5. I don't see why they would take it on if they didn't have plans to trash it.

It would not surprise me at all.

[herding cats]

6. I agree.

I expect to see this happen and I've read it will lead to the Democrats losing 13 seats.

[spanone]

7. Permanent republican rule.

[herding cats]

8. That's their plan.

And with all 3 branches of government in their pocket nothing is stopping them.

[Tribetime]

9. Mark Elias says it will give a minimum of 12 seats and probably way more

To republicans in 2026

[red dog 1]

10. This is a huge win for the GOP,

who are unable to win elections without corrupt SCOTUS interference.

[PortTack]

12. They haven't won yet. And don't call me naive!

[red dog 1]

14. When did I call you naive?

[PortTack]

11. Posted here in video on DU is a round table with Michael Steel about the arguement in front of the court today

Michael Steel talking with the woman who led the oral arguement against, didn’t seem to feel this was a done deal. It’s opinion, but certainly an educated one.

[UTUSN]

13. Yip, ROBERTS is hell bent