GOP Could Gain Nearly 20 Seats In Congress Over SCOTUS VRA Ruling

 The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in a Louisiana redistricting case that could affect how the Voting Rights Act is applied in election disputes. The case, Louisiana v. Callais, challenges a congressional map approved by Louisiana lawmakers that created a second majority Black district after earlier court challenges.

The dispute centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which allows private individuals and organizations to challenge election laws or redistricting plans they argue dilute the voting power of minority communities, The Intelligencer reported.

The Supreme Court previously ordered the case to be reargued, a step that signaled the justices may revisit how race can be considered when drawing congressional districts.

During oral arguments, the justices examined whether the use of race to create majority minority districts could conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been the primary legal tool for challenging redistricting plans since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

That ruling eliminated the law’s preclearance provision, which previously required certain states to obtain federal approval before implementing changes to election laws.

Legal analysts say the Court could issue a ruling that either limits the scope of Section 2 or establishes new standards for lawsuits challenging district maps.

A decision could also influence future redistricting efforts in states where one party controls the legislature and the governor’s office.

Analysts have pointed to several states, including Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Florida, where new congressional maps could potentially be considered ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, depending on the outcome of the case.

The Court could also determine when any changes to the legal standard would take effect.

In past election-related cases, the Court has cited the Purcell principle, which advises courts to avoid making changes to election rules close to an election.

If the justices apply that principle, any major changes resulting from the ruling could take effect after the 2026 election cycle.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the 2023 Allen v. Milligan ruling that requires the establishment of a second majority-Black district in Alabama, examined whether this framework is consistent with Allen and the Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles criteria.

The test mandates that plaintiffs demonstrate a minority group is not only sizable and cohesive but also experiences majority bloc voting that undermines their electoral candidates. Roberts appeared focused on aligning the proposal with established norms, steering clear of a complete transformation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an influential voice in the Allen case alongside Roberts and the liberal justices, raised the possibility of a “sunset” clause for Section 2 remedies, referencing precedents that restrict race-based policies to temporary solutions.

Voting rights organizations aligned with the Democratic Party are already warning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.

Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund argue that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is invalidated, it could significantly increase the likelihood of Republicans maintaining control over the House of Representatives for years.

Research has identified 27 congressional seats nationwide that could be redrawn to benefit Republicans, contingent on the current legal and political landscape remaining unchanged.

Nineteen of these changes are directly tied to the potential loss of Section 2 protections.

As the nation awaits the Supreme Court ruling, there’s now a push in some states to consider creating their own version of a “Voting Rights Act.”

Zakiya Summers, a Democrat from Mississippi, and Johnny DuPree, a Democrat from the state senate, both introduced bills to enact a state-level version of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.