Washington Bureau Report
A pending U.S. Supreme Court decision could dramatically alter the balance of power in Congress, with political analysts warning that a ruling against a key section of the Voting Rights Act may open the door for Republicans to gain as many as 20 additional seats in the House of Representatives.
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, argued before the Court on October 15, challenges the constitutionality and scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — a landmark civil rights provision that prohibits redistricting plans that diminish the voting strength of racial minorities.
If the Court decides to limit or overturn the provision, it could fundamentally reshape how congressional maps are drawn across several states, potentially triggering a wave of redistricting that would favor the GOP.
The Stakes: Section 2 and Its Role in Redistricting
Since its enactment in 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has served as a critical safeguard against racial discrimination in elections. Section 2, in particular, bars state and local governments from enacting voting procedures or redistricting maps that deny minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
Under current law, states must ensure that minority populations with sufficient size and geographic concentration are not unfairly fragmented across districts — a practice known as “vote dilution.”
But the Louisiana v. Callais case questions whether this provision imposes an unconstitutional racial standard on map-drawing. Republican officials in Louisiana argue that race-based requirements for district creation violate the Equal Protection Clause, while civil rights groups say eliminating Section 2 would dismantle one of the most important tools for combating voter suppression.
“Section 2 has been one of the most effective protections for communities of color since the Voting Rights Act was passed,” said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund. “If it’s weakened or struck down, it would clear the path for a one-party system where power serves the powerful and silences the people.”
Projected Political Impact
According to a new analysis shared exclusively with Politico by Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund, rolling back Section 2 could allow Republican-controlled legislatures to redraw up to 27 congressional districts nationwide. Of those, the report estimates 19 seats could shift directly toward the GOP — potentially cementing or expanding the party’s majority in the House.
The states most likely to be affected include Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, and Florida, where Republican-led governments have recently faced federal challenges over racial gerrymandering claims.
In Alabama, for instance, federal courts ordered the state to create a second majority-Black congressional district following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan. That case reaffirmed Section 2’s protections, requiring mapmakers to avoid diluting minority voting strength.
However, if the Court reverses course in Callais, it could effectively undo Milligan and similar rulings — allowing state legislatures greater leeway to design districts without considering racial fairness as a legal requirement.
Republican and Democratic Perspectives
Republican leaders have long argued that Section 2 has been misapplied in ways that favor Democrats by requiring states to draw districts that heavily favor one racial or political group. They maintain that redistricting should be guided by geography and population, not race.
“The Constitution demands equal treatment under the law,” said Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, who defended the state’s position before the Court. “We cannot continue to allow race to be the dominant factor in how congressional lines are drawn.”
GOP lawmakers also contend that eliminating race-based districting could restore “neutral” mapmaking and produce districts that better reflect overall population trends rather than political outcomes.
Democrats, however, warn that such a change would erode decades of civil rights progress. They argue that the history of discriminatory mapmaking — particularly in the Deep South — demonstrates the need for federal oversight to ensure minority representation.
“Without Section 2, nothing prevents states from going back to the tactics that kept communities of color out of power for generations,” said Stacey Abrams, founder of Fair Fight Action. “This is not just about partisan advantage — it’s about the fundamental right to equal representation.”
Legal Experts Warn of Broader Consequences
Constitutional scholars say the implications of Louisiana v. Callais go beyond partisan politics. A decision to weaken or eliminate Section 2 could reshape how courts evaluate racial discrimination claims in elections nationwide.
“This case is about the balance between the Constitution’s ban on racial classifications and Congress’s authority to protect minority voting rights,” said Dr. Harold McKinney, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. “If the Court narrows Section 2, it could make future challenges to racially biased maps much harder to win.”
A previous ruling in 2013 — Shelby County v. Holder — already struck down another key section of the Voting Rights Act, ending the requirement that certain jurisdictions receive federal approval before changing voting laws. That decision led to a wave of new voting restrictions and map changes in multiple states.
Many civil rights groups fear Callais could represent a second major blow to the law, further reducing Washington’s ability to monitor and prevent racially discriminatory redistricting.
Political Ripple Effects
While Democrats have raised alarm about potential Republican gains, political strategists note that the ruling could also open opportunities for both parties in different regions.
If Section 2 is curtailed, Democratic-controlled states — such as Illinois, New York, and California — could also redraw maps to consolidate their advantage, since federal protections for minority-majority districts would no longer apply in the same way.
“The political fallout wouldn’t be one-sided,” said Michael Chan, a senior analyst at the nonpartisan Election Mapping Project. “If racial considerations are removed from map-drawing altogether, states under either party’s control could push for maps that maximize their own partisan interests. It could accelerate the national trend toward political polarization.”
Awaiting the Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais is expected sometime in early 2026, though some observers believe the justices may attempt to narrow Section 2 without fully overturning it.
The Court’s current conservative majority — led by Chief Justice John Roberts, with Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett often voting together — has historically taken a skeptical view of race-based legal frameworks. Still, Roberts has previously expressed hesitation about completely dismantling the Voting Rights Act.
“The Court may choose to redefine how Section 2 applies, rather than eliminate it,” said McKinney. “They could require a higher burden of proof or limit its use to intentional discrimination cases rather than effects-based claims.”
Until then, both parties are preparing for the possibility of significant changes. Democratic-aligned organizations are already ramping up voter education and legal defense efforts, while Republican state lawmakers are quietly reviewing contingency plans for potential redistricting opportunities.
An Uncertain Future for Voting Rights
As the nation awaits the Court’s decision, the debate over the Voting Rights Act has once again highlighted the deep divide between those who see race-conscious protections as essential to democracy and those who view them as unconstitutional favoritism.
Whichever way the justices rule, the outcome will almost certainly reshape the congressional map — and potentially determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives for years to come.
“This case is about more than seats or statistics,” Brown said. “It’s about whether America still believes in the promise of fair and equal representation for all.”