On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a challenge to the 2024 Louisiana congressional map that brings into conflict the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is the second time this case has come before SCOTUS; the justices heard original arguments in March, but did not render a decision during the last term.
If the end of the 2025 term finds SCOTUS ruling in Louisiana’s favor, this case would not only upend how the Voting Rights Act is used but will change the calculus of the redistricting schemes being pushed in California and New York.
Attorney and former U.S. Senate candidate for California Mark Meuser broke it down well in an X post.
The post Meuser said, in part:
The Supreme Court could soon change how every congressional map in America is drawn, including California.
Today the Court hears oral arguments in Callais v. Louisiana, a case that could reshape redistricting for decades.
Here’s what’s at stake: for years, federal courts have interpreted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to require states to gerrymander congressional districts so minority groups are virtually guaranteed the ability to elect a representative of their same race. Callais challenges that approach, arguing that the current interpretation of the VRA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it forces states to make race the predominant factor in drawing district lines.
If SCOTUS kills race-based districting, will Wicomico County appeal the decision requiring our redistricting for County Council representation?!