Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court seems ready to impose stricter controls on the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by federal courts, which could protect state lawmakers from challenges that mix race and partisanship in the redistricting process.
The impending decision carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations cautioning 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.
In the re-arguments of Louisiana v. Callais, a conservative majority expressed a willingness to consider an approach supported by the Trump Justice Department.
This could complicate the ability of plaintiffs to succeed in claims of racial vote dilution in areas where voting patterns closely mirror party affiliations—a defining characteristic of contemporary Southern politics.
Advertisement
The situation arises from Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which a federal district court has found likely to violate Section 2 by funneling Black voters—who represent approximately one-third of the state’s population—into a single majority-Black district out of a total of six.
In 2024, lawmakers took action by adopting a remedial plan that established a second district of this kind. However, white voters took legal action, claiming that the adjustments constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and a district judge ruled in their favor.
The case, initially presented last March, has returned, as the justices have requested new briefs regarding the constitutionality of Section 2.
Last summer, Louisiana changed its position, now advocating for the Court to restrict or abolish race-conscious districting. Black voters who launched the initial challenge stood by the remedial map, asserting that it effectively addresses the documented dilution of minority voting power.
Conservative justices displayed hesitation to completely overturn Section 2, a provision established in 1965 and reinforced in 1982 to prevent practices that deny minorities equal access to the electoral process.
Advertisement
In reference to the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which prevented federal courts from intervening in partisan gerrymandering, Mooppan contended that states could justify their maps by citing valid partisan objectives, even when these objectives intersect with racial demographics.
This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths, for example, without violating Section 2, provided the intent isn’t solely racial.
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.
Advertisement
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 that would make a state-level version of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The law would set up a Mississippi voting rights commission. This commission would have to give its approval before any changes to election policy or practice could be made in certain areas. It would also protect people who don’t speak English very well and add other protections.
Shock New Revelations Regarding Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Drop - This Is Why She's Under Investigation
E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegations against President Donald Trump were never credible, and now she’s under investigation by the Department of Justice for perjury.
Now, Byron York is digging into the case and has uncovered what could be the most elaborate political setup in history.
Critics of Carroll have long argued that major inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding her allegations against Trump undermine the credibility of the claims.
Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her sometime in the mid-1990s. Critics frequently point to her inability to identify a precise year. They also argue that aspects of the timeline and surrounding details remain difficult to reconcile.
Skeptics have also questioned why Carroll waited decades before publicly making the accusation. This is especially true given that they came near the height of the “Me Too” movement.
Carroll has offered multiple explanations for remaining silent for years. They include concerns about her Republican mother’s health and fears that going public politically could inadvertently benefit Trump.
Oh. Right. You bet.
She waited until 2019 to ‘disclose’ her allegations. But she didn’t go to police. Didn’t go to a lawyer. She didn’t even go to a journalist. Rather, she made the allegation in a book. And why? Well, that was the only way to generate royalties:
And Carroll had a history of grifting, too. Before the book even dropped, she was charging admission for her “Most Hideous Men in NYC Walking Tour,” a 90-minute #MeToo landmark stroll through Manhattan. The tour started at the Bergdorf Goodman entrance on 58th Street, which just so happens to be exactly where she claims she first encountered Trump the day of the alleged assault. She had been leading paying groups past that spot before she’d told the world what had supposedly happened there.
Now here’s where the origins of these allegations get genuinely interesting. Carroll, by then a certified celebrity of the anti-Trump resistance, attended a party at writer Molly Jong-Fast’s Manhattan home, a gathering the New York Times described as “Resistance Twitter come to life.” The guest list included George Conway, who apparently advised Carroll to sue Trump for defamation.
The case got a critical boost when the New York legislature passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, which allowed sexual assault claims to be filed regardless of expired statutes of limitations. Carroll had helped advocate for the bill. The Act went into effect on November 24, 2022, and within hours, Carroll filed a second suit, this time adding a rape allegation in addition to defamation.
Tech billionaire Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and a virulent anti-Trump guy, bankrolled all of it. But Carroll testified under oath that no one was paying her legal fees. She described it as a “contingency case.”
It was just before the trial began that her own attorney wrote to Trump’s legal team admitting that Carroll had “recollected additional information” while preparing for testimony.
Trump’s lawyers stated that the “belated disclosure” raised “significant concerns” about Carroll’s “bias and motive.”
Hoffman carries political baggage of his own. In 2018, Hoffman apologized after it was revealed he had funded a group that secretly mimicked Russian disinformation to help a Democrat win an Alabama Senate seat.
Now, York says, investigators are digging deeper into the broader origins of the anti-Trump legal and political apparatus.
This includes the network of activist lawyers, wealthy donors, resistance groups, and strategically timed legal maneuvers that critics argue helped fuel years of coordinated lawfare against Trump.
For conservatives, the emerging scrutiny feels long overdue.
