Drawn to Lose

The Voting Rights Act, District Maps After Callais, and Ideas for Reforming our Electoral System.

Photo by Sonder Bridge Photography on Unsplash

By: Ambar Zobairi

Sixty years ago, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) broke Jim Crow’s back at the ballot box. Within months of its passage, a quarter-million Black Americans were newly registered to vote. Within a few years, the first Black mayors of major American cities had been elected, and the first Black woman had been sent to Congress. The VRA ended up impacting not only who could vote but also who was elected.

On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to what remained of it.

The 6-3 court ruling in Callais v. Landry is the culmination of a decade-long effort to dismantle the architecture of minority political representation, and its effects are reshaping the 2026 midterm elections in real time. Come November 2026, the United States may see the most consequential shift of American representation since the 1960s.

What is the Voting Rights Act?

On February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment was ratified by 29 out of 37 states to become part of the U.S. Constitution. The amendment prohibited the federal government and states from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. Yet, for the next 90 years, that promise remained largely unfulfilled. Across the South and beyond, African Americans were subjected to a litany of tactics such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and violence that effectively nullified their political power in practice.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in August 1965. It was designed to enforce the 15th amendment and dismantle the Jim Crow-era barriers that prevented African-Americans from voting. Its effects were almost immediate. By the end of that year alone, a quarter of a million new black voters registered to vote. The next few years also saw other momentous firsts for the African American community: the first black mayors elected in big cities, the first black senator elected since Reconstruction, and the first black woman, Shirley Chisholm, elected to Congress and running for president.

For decades, the law stood on two primary pillars:

· Section 2 applied nationwide and prohibited any voting practice that resulted in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race.

· Section 5 required states with a history of discrimination to receive preclearance from the federal government before changing any voting laws.

Crucially, Section 2 operated under a results test. This meant that an electoral map or law could be challenged successfully even without proving that lawmakers intended to discriminate. If the actual effect of a map was to dilute the influence of minority voters through “cracking” (splitting a community into several districts so they have no influence) or “packing” (concentrating them into one district to minimize their influence in surrounding districts), the law provided a remedy.

Historically, Section 2 doctrine relied on the three-part Gingles test to require majority-minority districts where a minority community could show it was large, compact, politically cohesive, and consistently defeated by bloc voting. A majority-minority district is one where a racial or language minority group makes up more than 50 percent of the population, theoretically guaranteeing them the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. This provided a stable, predictable framework for ensuring representation and has resulted in 148 majority-minority districts, accounting for roughly one-third of the House. While often associated with the Black community, majority-minority districts have been essential for increasing representation of a wide variety of communities across the country including:

• Hispanic/Latinos: This is actually the largest community of majority-minority districts, including deep-rooted areas like Texas’s 16th District (El Paso) and Arizona’s 3rd District (Phoenix).

• Asian-Americans: Specific districts have emerged to reflect demographic shifts in urban hubs, most notably California’s 17th District in Silicon Valley, which is 58% Asian, and newer districts in Queens, New York.

• Native Americans: The VRA has protected tribal voices by preventing reservations from being split across multiple districts. In Arizona and New Mexico, for example, Section 2 has been used to ensure the Navajo Nation remains a unified “community of interest,” allowing them to elect representatives who understand their unique sovereign status and infrastructure needs.

The VRA’s Long Decline

Over more than a decade, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that have steadily narrowed the VRA’s reach. The first major blow came in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder which effectively neutralized Section 5 by striking down the pre-clearance formula used to determine which states required federal oversight for voting law changes. This shifted the entire burden of enforcement to Section 2.

In 2021, the Court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee limited Section 2 by making it harder to challenge voting rules that have a disparate impact on minority groups. More recently, in the 2024 case Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, the Court established that when race and partisan affiliation are highly correlated, it is almost impossible for plaintiffs to prove racial gerrymandering without extraordinarily powerful evidence.

What is Callais v. Landry?

The legal standard reached a definitive turning point on April 29, 2026, with the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Callais v. Landry. The case involved Louisiana’s congressional map, which had been redrawn to include a second majority-Black district following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan (which actually focused on Alabama).

In Milligan, the Supreme Court upheld the Section 2 challenge and reaffirmed that if a map results in the dilution of minority voting power, it must be redrawn even if that requires a race-conscious remedy. This ruling sent a clear signal to other states with similar demographics, including Louisiana, that they were legally obligated to draw more representative maps. Following this mandate, Louisiana redrew its congressional boundaries to include a second majority-Black district.

However, in Callais, the Court pivoted. It ruled that Louisiana’s attempt to comply with the VRA was actually an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court held that unless there is proof of contemporary, intentional discrimination, the VRA does not provide a “compelling interest” to use race as a factor in redistricting. By shifting the focus from the results of a map to the intent of the mapmakers, the Court effectively ended the era of race-conscious redistricting as a standard practice.

The practical consequences of such a decision are easy to understate. When a majority-minority district is dismantled, the community it represented loses not only a seat but also a representative with a direct stake in its neighborhoods, its schools, and its funding priorities. Candidates who reflect the demographics of a community are less likely to appear on the ballot. Localized concerns get absorbed into larger districts and may not get the attention they need. And the community’s ability to build political leverage over time, including earmarks and sustained legislative attention, evaporates.

The Constitutional Collision

The legal consensus has moved decisively toward a colorblind interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. For decades, the VRA (grounded in the 15th Amendment) required states to consider race to ensure minority representation. However, the Callais ruling flipped the hierarchy: the Supreme Court now holds that the Equal Protection Clause actually prohibits the government from using race as the “predominant factor” in drawing lines, even when a state says it is trying to comply with the VRA.

Proponents argue this shift ensures that redistricting remains a purely political process, free from racial engineering. Critics, however, contend that by removing these guardrails, the Court is allowing for the systematic dilution of minority voices under the guise of race-neutrality. A number of states are already testing this boundary, creating a landscape of cartographic chaos even as many voters head to the polls for their states’ primaries.

Callais Causes Chaos in the 2026 Primaries

The most striking aspect of the Callais decision is its immediate and disruptive effect on the current 2026 primary cycle. Following the April 29 ruling, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry issued an emergency declaration to suspend the state’s primary elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, which were scheduled for May 16. This suspension occurred while the election was already in progress; absentee ballots had been mailed, and approximately 42,000 voters had already cast their votes. Early voting started two days later.

Crucially, while the Louisiana House races are suspended to allow for a legislative map redraw, all other contests, including the U.S. Senate primary and local judicial races, are proceeding. House candidates will still appear on the physical ballots, but any votes cast in those specific races will not be counted or certified. This immediately triggered a wave of litigation. On May 4, a coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters filed an emergency federal challenge, Bernard v. Landry. The plaintiffs argue that suspending only a portion of an ongoing election creates confusion and public mistrust and disenfranchises voters who may not realize their House votes are void. As of writing, the standoff remains unresolved, leaving election workers to manage a primary where only some of the ballot actually counts.

Beyond Louisiana, the Callais ruling has acted as a trigger for rapid-response redistricting across the South:

• Florida: The strategic fallout from the Callais decision was felt immediately in Florida, where Governor DeSantis signed a new congressional map on May 4, 2026, timing a special legislative session specifically to capitalize on the Supreme Court’s shift toward race-neutral redistricting. By leveraging this new colorblind standard to dismantle several of the state’s established majority-minority districts in urban hubs like Orlando and Miami, the redraw is projected to shift the state’s delegation from a 20-8 split to a 24-4 Republican supermajority.

• Alabama: On May 8, Governor Kay Ivey signed a legislative package, approved by in a special session triggered by the Callais ruling, that seeks to dismantle the state’s second majority-Black district. Absentee voting for the May 19 primary is already underway. However, the new law authorizes the state to nullify votes already cast for House or Senate seats in affected districts and hold a supplemental primary under a previously rejected, race-neutral map. The Supreme Court cleared the way for the redistricting action on May 11 by sending litigation related to the maps back to the lower courts to consider in light of Callais, over the mandate received just three years ago in Allen v. Milligan.

• Tennessee and South Carolina: On May 6 and 7, both states took aggressive steps toward mid-cycle congressional redraws. In Tennessee, the legislature moved to “crack” the majority-Black city of Memphis into three separate Republican-leaning districts, a move intended to eliminate the state’s final Democratic-held seat. Meanwhile, South Carolina leadership cleared procedural hurdles to target its lone Democratic district, citing the Callais decision as proof that the state is no longer legally required to maintain a majority-minority seat.

• Mississippi: Mississippi is taking a slightly different approach and applying the Callais colorblind standard to its third branch of government. On May 1, Governor Tate Reeves called for a special session in late May specifically to redraw State Supreme Court districts. The state argues that under the new Supreme Court precedent, it is not constitutionally required to create a majority-Black judicial district despite a lower court recently finding that the state’s current judicial maps illegally dilute the power of Black voters, who make up nearly 40 percent of the population.

Impact on the House Balance of Power

Beyond the immediate administrative confusion, the Callais decision has fundamentally altered the math for the 2026 midterm elections. In a closely divided U.S. House of Representatives, where the majority is currently decided by a handful of seats, the sudden ability to redraw maps mid-cycle has turned what were considered safe districts into battlegrounds overnight.

The Republican Strategic Advantage

Legal analysts and political scientists suggest that the weakening of Section 2 provides a distinct strategic advantage to the GOP in the short term. Because Black and Latino voters in the South historically lean Democratic, the majority-minority districts protected by the VRA have served as reliable blue anchors in otherwise red states. Of the 148 majority-minority districts noted earlier, approximately 122 are represented by Democrats and 26 by Republicans. The Callais ruling allows Republican-led legislatures to dismantle these anchors under the guise of partisan gerrymandering, which the Court has ruled is a political question beyond the reach of federal judges. Projections from non-partisan analysts suggest that 15 or more congressional seats in historically black districts could be redrawn to favor Republicans before November, potentially enough to secure the House majority regardless of the national popular vote. This does not even include the number of seats that other communities like Hispanics and Native Americans could lose, nor does it include the number of seats that could be lost in state legislatures.

The Packing Paradox

The Republican map-making surge does carry a structural risk for Republicans. Some scholars have argued that the VRA paradoxically benefited Republicans by concentrating Democratic voters into a handful of majority-minority districts, leaving the surrounding suburban seats safer for GOP incumbents. Unpacking those voters and spreading them across neighboring districts to eliminate majority-minority seats may inadvertently flip those surrounding seats from reliably red to genuinely competitive. In a strong Democratic year nationally, GOP incumbents who once held comfortable margins could suddenly find themselves in purple districts with no cushion.

The Road Beyond Callais

The Callais decision is not the end of the story. Litigation is already moving through the courts, although the legislative redraws are moving faster. Republican-led legislatures across the South have acted with a speed that suggests they anticipated this moment, and the window for any court to intervene before November is narrowing by the week. In the meantime, voters in affected states are already facing confusion around the primaries and whether their votes will count at all. Election staff are bracing for multiple rounds of primaries, adding to their work in an already busy election year. States (and their voters) are bearing costs of administering extra sets of elections that nobody budgeted for.

Those consequences of what is happening now could last for decades to come. The Voting Rights Act was enacted precisely because the right to vote was never enough on its own. The VRA was designed to protect meaningful access to the ballot, and Section 2 ensured that minority communities could translate that access into actual representation. That is what is now being dismantled, one map at a time.

The fight for meaningful representation must now pivot from reactive litigation to proactive, structural reform. The task ahead is not merely to mourn the architecture of the past, but to build a new, fairer foundation for the future of American representation that cannot be gerrymandered. Rebuilding a resilient electoral democracy requires a multi-pronged strategy focused on federal legislation, institutional overhauls, and local civic defenses.

1. Federal Legislative Remedies: Statutory Firewalls

Because the Supreme Court based its Callais ruling on a strict interpretation of current statutes and the 14th Amendment, the most direct remedy lies with Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate federal elections.

• Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act: This legislation would explicitly restore and modernize the VRA and legally reaffirm that any map diluting minority voices is unlawful, regardless of the lawmakers’ stated motives.

• Establish a Federal Ban on Partisan Gerrymandering: Since the Court allows states to use “partisan advantage” as a legal shield to dismantle majority-minority districts, a federal statutory ban on partisan gerrymandering would eliminate this loophole entirely.

2. Structural Reform: Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRCs)

As long as politicians are permitted to draw their own district lines, maps will be weaponized for partisan survival. Moving redistricting out of partisan state legislatures is a proven mechanism for protecting communities of interest.

• Champion Citizen-Led Ballot Initiatives: In states that allow public referendums, citizens can bypass state legislatures to establish independent, non-partisan redistricting commissions.

• Incentivize IRCs Nationally: Advocates must push for federal legislation, such as the Freedom to Vote Act, which mandates the use of independent commissions for all congressional redistricting nationwide.

3. Direct Citizen Action and Civic Oversight

Ultimately, institutional guardrails are only as strong as the civic pressure maintaining them, and there is a part for citizens and civil society to play.

• Demand Accountability from Capitol Hill: Citizens must aggressively engage their federal representatives, demanding co-sponsorship of voting rights legislation and floor votes that force lawmakers to clearly state their positions on representation on the record.

• Invest in Local Election Administration: Because mid-cycle redraws create immense administrative confusion, supporting local election workers, volunteering as non-partisan poll watchers or election workers, and participating in localized voter-education campaigns are critical to ensuring that voters are not disenfranchised by changing poll locations or altered primary dates.