Is Gerrymandering Ever Justified? (SHANNONDELL Valley Forge)

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is widely viewed by Democrats and civil rights activists as a landmark success that eliminated legalized voter suppression like literacy tests, but the recent Supreme Court decision striking down a Louisiana redistricting map raises the question: Have the legislatures and courts gone “to far” in trying to level the playing field by intentionally creating “majority-minority” voting districts. We will discuss this and the larger question: Is gerrymandering ever justified, and how much authority does the federal government have under the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) and the 15th amendment (race) to enforce voting rights in the states?

Key Impacts of the Voting Rights Act:

• Enfranchisement: The VRA led to a massive increase in Black voter registration across the South by the end of 1966. By 2013 all but 4 Southern states had increased black voter registration to at least 50 percent.
• Federal court supervision: Supervision of states with a history of racially discriminatory voting practices forced Southern states to end hundreds of discriminatory practices until court supervision was ended by the Supreme Court in 2013.
• Prevention of racial gerrymanders: For decades, Section 2 of the VRA has enabled challenges against voting maps that diluted the voting power of minority communities.
• New Supreme Court ruling weakens VRA: Last week, the Supreme Court ruled by 6-3 that certain majority-minority districts in Louisiana were unconstitutional, making it harder to prove racial discrimination under Section 2 of the VRA.

The Court ruled that the existing map was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” President Trump and Republican leaders praised the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Louisiana’s congressional map. According to Fox News, “the Justice Department announced that it will enforce the decision on gerrymandering districts in every state that has such a district.” For a sampling of actions being taken as a consequence of the Court decision, watch the Fox News video clip, “DOJ to Enforce Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering,” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKA3N6QvUJE. Opponents of the VRA argue that certain interpretations of the law allow race to influence government decision-making too heavily.

On the other hand, civil rights activists say it is essential to combat ongoing voter suppression. They describe the Court’s new decision as weakening the law. For a sampling of objections to the Louisiana v. Callais opinion, see the Guardian article, “US supreme court ‘demolishes’ Voting Rights Act, gutting provision that prevented racial discrimination.” The link is https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-case-ruling. The author, Sam Levine writes, “The court’s decision is a major upheaval in US civil rights law and gives lawmakers permission to draw districting plans that weaken the influence of Black and other minority voters.”

For more background on the history of racial gerrymandering and the potential consequences of Louisiana v. Callais, see this article on the NAACP Legal Defense Fund website, “Louisiana v. Callais: Voting Rights and Redistricting.” The link is https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais/.

Some questions to ponder:

• Should redrawing voting districts based on race be allowed – even if they are intended to remedy racial gerrymandering?
• Should majority Democratic states like California, intentionally gerrymander Democratic-majority districts to compensate for Texas gerrymandered Republican-majority districts?
• Why do leaders of both parties assume that Blacks and other minorities will vote Democratic, when so many of them voted for Trump in 2024?