With its recent dismantling of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court evoked the spirit of 1898.
That year, Louisiana adopted a new constitution with the explicit design to keep Black men from voting.
The new state constitution included a poll tax, and literacy and property-ownership requirements.
Fearing these restrictions would disenfranchise poor and illiterate white men, lawmakers crafted a grandfather clause that allowed people whose ancestors were registered to vote before 1867 to continue to cast a ballot.
Because Black men couldn’t legally vote in Louisiana in 1867 — and no women could vote — this is how their vote was legally taken away in 1898 while the votes of white men were preserved.
The law led to a drastic reduction of Black voters and Black officeholders.
Past is prologue, and so it was that Louisiana and race neutrality were at the center of last week’s 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which shredded the last remaining defense of the Voting Rights Act, or VRA.
While the repercussions won’t be as extreme as those of 1898, the outcome of this decision will diminish Black voting power and reduce the number of Black elected officials. These ghosts continue to haunt.
The VRA was the greatest achievement of the Civil Rights Movement as it expanded democracy by removing barriers so that Black and Latino citizens could more fully participate as voters and officeholders.
Its two pillars of protection were Section 5 requiring jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to receive preclearance from the Department of Justice before changing voting rules; and Section 2, which prohibits voting laws and procedures that discriminate based on race.
The VRA had been repeatedly renewed with overwhelming bipartisan support and the signatures of Republican and Democratic presidents, but it has faced a relentless assault from the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts.
Louisiana, where Black people are a third of the total population, has six congressional districts. After state lawmakers created a second majority Black congressional district, white voters challenged it, arguing the district was specifically based on race.
The court agreed. In his majority decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that moving forward, anyone challenging a redistricting map on race must prove it was “intentionally” drawn to discriminate against a specific racial group.
This goes against Congress’ amendment to Section 2 during its 1982 renewal: Plaintiffs only had to show that the effects, and not the intent, were discriminatory. The Senate passed it 85-8, and President Ronald Reagan signed it.
… The Roberts court, with its approval of partisan gerrymandering, has given lawmakers the costume. Republican-led legislatures are free to draw racially discriminatory political districts if they don a partisan mask and not a racial one. …
Given the short run up to November’s midterm elections, the impact of this decision won’t be as huge in 2026 as it will be in 2028, but it will be felt.
