2026-07-29 · contested story
Their Loved Ones Died to Give Us the Voting Rights Act. They Have a Message for...
On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that creating majority-minority congressional districts to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act constitutes unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering. The decision effectively ended the last major enforcement mechanism of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, following earlier decisions in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich v. DNC (2021) that had already gutted other provisions. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that evidence of discriminatory intent, not just discriminatory effect, is now required to prove Voting Rights Act violations.
Left and center outlets frame this as a catastrophic blow to civil rights protections, with Slate interviewing descendants of civil rights martyrs who said "we have lost the 'protections' for our democracy 'that my mother's blood gave us.'" The Legal Defense Fund and HuffPost emphasized how the decision threatens thousands of local seats—school boards, county councils, water boards—that had been created under Section 2 litigation to give Black, Latino, Asian and Native communities political representation. Right-leaning outlets like Fox News and National Review frame the decision as merely clarifying that the Constitution prohibits race-based district drawing, with Fox arguing the media wrongly claimed the court "gutted" the VRA when it simply applied existing precedent. The New York Post and National Review question whether maximizing voter turnout is inherently good, with one National Review piece asking "Why Not Fewer Voters?"
How each side frames it
left
"we have lost the 'protections' for our democracy 'that my mother's blood gave us.'"
"The vast majority of districts created through litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was at issue in Callais, are at the local level. These are seats on county councils, city councils, water boards, school boards, election commissions and so on."
"In a 6–3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority killed the last remaining prong of the VRA, the cause for which these heroes had given their last full measure of devotion."
"For decades, their families could look back at their sacrifices in sorrow but also in pride at how their lives had forged a true American democracy. This past April, though, something changed."
"What the DeSoto County case shows is that it will be nearly impossible to create new opportunity districts for minority representation going forward. That is a particular concern as nearly all new population growth in the South has come from Black, Asian and Latino communities."
center
"April 29, 2026 – In a case examining Louisiana's congressional plan, the Supreme Court rules 6-3 that a map that had created a second majority-minority district in the state because of a Voting Rights Act challenge amounted to an unconstitutional use of race."
"Judges who looked to state history for the meaning of a constitution's undefined words – words such as 'election' or 'vote' – tended to vote for overturning the laws. The historical examination by these jurists invariably concluded that constitutional framers incorporated traditional understanding when they used these words"
"State VRAs include prohibitions against suppressing, intimidating, deceiving, obstructing, or drowning out Black voters' power. Several State VRAs also work to expand language access, stop voting discrimination before it occurs, boost election transparency"
"Since its adoption in 1965 and amendment in 1982, Section 2 has been the primary tool used to expand electoral opportunities for Black, Latino, Asian and Native communities at all levels of government across the country."
"The requirement for preclearance of voting changes was ruled unconstitutional in a 2013 US Supreme Court decision. 'The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance for the new voting changes'"
right
"Unfortunately, the immediate, knee-jerk reaction from the legacy media and many partisan commentators has been to wrongly claim that the court is 'racist' or that it 'weakened,' 'gutted' or 'obliterated' the VRA. An objective analysis of Callais, its underlying facts and its progenitor cases disproves these inaccurate claims."
"Justice Kagan also wrote that litigants must 'disentangle race from politics and prove that the former drove a district's lines.' Callais is a natural outgrowth from Cooper and does not contradict it."
"Much of the discussion about proposed changes to voting laws backed by many Republicans and generally opposed by Democrats begs the question and simply asserts that having more people vote is, ceteris paribus, a good thing. Why should we believe that? Why shouldn't we believe the opposite? That the republic would be better served by having fewer — but better — voters?"
"If we'd had a fair and open national plebiscite about slavery on December 6, 1865, slavery would have won in a landslide. If we held a plebiscite on abolishing the death penalty today, the death penalty would be sustained."
"the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race"
What each side left out
The right left out — covered by the Slate & HuffPost & Legal Defense Fund
- the specific stories and perspectives of civil rights martyrs' families
- the thousands of local seats at risk beyond congressional districts
- the demographic reality that population growth in the South comes primarily from communities of color
The left left out — covered by the Fox News
- the legal precedent from Cooper v. Harris written by Justice Kagan
- the constitutional argument that race-conscious districting itself constitutes discrimination
- the distinction between discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect
The center left out — covered by the Slate & HuffPost & Fox News & National Review
- normative arguments about whether the decision is morally right or wrong
- predictions about specific electoral consequences in upcoming elections
The right left out — covered by the Slate & Wikipedia
- the history of violence and sacrifice required to pass the Voting Rights Act
- the record of state legislatures using race-neutral justifications to mask racial intent in redistricting
The left left out — covered by the Fox News
- discussion of whether requiring discriminatory intent rather than just discriminatory effect is constitutionally sound
- examination of Allen v. Milligan's prohibition on forcing 'proportional representation'
What's actually true?
[verified] The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026
[verified] Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in Callais
[verified] Justice Elena Kagan dissented in Callais
[verified] The vast majority of districts created through Section 2 litigation are at the local level (county councils, city councils, water boards, school boards, election commissions)
[verified] Viola Liuzzo was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan after marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday in 1965
[verified] The Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965
[verified] Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion in Cooper v. Harris (2017) which held that North Carolina unconstitutionally used race as 'the dominant factor' in creating majority Black districts
[verified] Eleven states have currently passed voter protections through a State Voting Rights Act
The narrative clash
whether the decision represents continuity or rupture with precedent
Left: In a 6–3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority killed the last remaining prong of the VRA
Right: Callais is a natural outgrowth from Cooper and does not contradict it.
whether the decision weakened or clarified the VRA
Left: The ruling essentially means evidence of a discriminatory motive may be necessary to win Voting Rights Act-based challenges
Right: It did not overturn any prior cases.
whether maximizing voter participation is inherently good
Left: Both parties needed the conspicuous support of soldiers for credibility in communicating their campaign themes.
Right: Why should we believe that? Why shouldn't we believe the opposite? That the republic would be better served by having fewer — but better — voters?
11 sources analyzed
slate.com vote.org legaldefensefund.substack.com en.wikipedia.org KESQ 3 HuffPost electionlawblog.org NY Post Nat Review Reason Fox News