The Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais is built on the premise that America has changed so much that the protections of the Voting Rights Act are no longer necessary. But history and current events suggest otherwise.
A History of Unfulfilled Promises
In 1901, George H. White, the only Black member of Congress, gave a farewell address after North Carolina made his re-election impossible. He predicted a phoenix-like rise, which came 64 years later with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That act was not a gift but a constraint imposed on a country that had proven it would not protect Black voting rights without one.
The Court's Flawed Premise
The Callais ruling removes that constraint, arguing that social change has occurred, particularly in the South. Yet evidence shows the racial turnout gap has widened, and Louisiana has never elected a Black congressperson from a non-majority-Black district. The court's faith in America's progress is not supported by evidence.
Immediate Consequences
Within hours of the ruling, Florida passed a new congressional map to benefit Republicans, Louisiana delayed its primary elections to eliminate a majority-Black district, and other states signaled similar moves. This could lead to the loss of up to 30% of Congressional Black Caucus seats and nearly 200 state legislative seats held by Democrats across the South.
The Deeper Issue
The court's decision allows partisan gerrymandering to hide racial discrimination, as intent is nearly impossible to prove. This, combined with weakened enforcement and political pressure, threatens the foundation of multiracial democracy.
As Jamil Smith writes, the fatigue of fighting the same battles generation after generation is bone-deep. The Voting Rights Act was a constraint, not a gift, and without it, we must again force America to do the right thing.
