The Death Of The Voting Rights Act EXPLAINED

Sources

Louisiana v. Callais Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf

Intelligencer. “The Many Serious Implications of the Supreme Court’s Callais Ruling.” April 29, 2026. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/did-supreme-court-just-kill-voting-rights-act-live-updates.html.

My video from October: Voting Rights Are On The Chopping Block. https://youtu.be/bmg_t72L_-E?si=D9zsviBsygg8vNzf

Transcript

Hi it’s Thursday, April 30th, 2026, you’re tuned in to Why, America? I’m your lawyer friend, Leeja Miller. On Wednesday, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the landmark legislation that marked the crowning achievement of the Civil Rights era, sounded its final death knell as the Supreme Court gutted section 2 of the act in its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais. Today we’re discussing the background of this case, the Supreme Court’s decision, and the long term implications of the death of the Voting Rights Act.

Here’s what you need to know about Louisiana v. Callais–I’m plagiarizing myself here, I did a video on this back in October when they heard oral argument on this case, but it bears repeating in light of this ruling. Louisiana is divided into 6 districts, each with its own Representative in the House. In 2022, after the results of the 2020 census, Louisiana redrew its district map resulting in only one majority-black district out of the six. This despite the fact that fully one third of the population of Louisiana is black. A group of black voters sued and successfully argued that the new map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The 5th Circuit court of appeals, known to be deeply conservative, held in the voters favor and ordered Louisiana to redraw its map in a way that doesn’t conflict with Section 2 of the Voting Rights act. So in 2024, a new map was drawn. In drawing that map, the Republican Louisiana legislature was worried about the political outcome of the new map and so worked to ensure that the new districts would strategically align with their political goals, especially with protecting the districts that elected Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, and Julia Letlow, a Republican representative with a lot of power because she sits on the House Appropriations Committee. The more power your representatives have in Congress, the more power they have to take actions that benefit you in the state, so it was in the Republican legislature’s best interests to ensure the political safety of those two Representatives as they were redrawing the map to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The new map included 2 majority-black districts kind of snaking through the middle of the state, including the major cities of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport. Because historical discrimination in housing and white flight from the cities means that most of the Black voting-age population lives in those major cities. Because we still live in a de facto segregated society because we still exist within the consequences of centuries of slavery and marginalization. And if we look at the original Louisiana map with just one majority black district, you can see how the court reached the conclusion that this map was, in fact, a racial gerrymander.

A racial gerrymander is when a state redraws district maps so as to dilute the vote of historically marginalized groups, usually black voters. They do this through two tactics: cracking and packing. Where possible, you divide up black populations so that they will be outnumbered by white voters, effectively ensuring they can never gain enough votes to elect someone they want, that’s cracking, and then you draw a district where as many black voters as possible are included, that’s packing. So you confine most black voters to one district or as few districts as possible, and then ensure that anyone outside that district will have their vote diluted by as many white people as possible. This is of course assuming that black voters vote similarly or as one block, which isn’t always the case but we’ll get into that. In the original Louisiana map, District 2 was the single majority black district. That district includes New Orleans and Baton Rouge, effectively confining most black voters to one district and diluting the votes of all the rest. So one third of the population has a voice in 1 sixth of the districts. In the new map that was redrawn after the 5th circuit said the first map violated the Voting Rights Act, you can see the two districts that are now majority black, which span from Shreveport down to New Orleans. So then non-african american voters sued in their OWN lawsuit saying that now THEY were being discriminated against because ANY consideration of race violates the 14th and 15th amendments’ equal protection and voting rights provisions.

AD

Staying informed on current events is so important and literally that’s what I’m here for, but it’s so hard to do so while also having to think about, you know, your personal finances. And my CREDIT is literally the LAST thing I want to be thinking about right now. But it’s unfortunately an important facet of this whole being an adult thing.

If you are trying to improve or rebuild your credit, you gotta check out Kikoff, the #1 credit-building app in the app store.

*Based on Oct 2024 App Store ranking of credit builders in the "Finance" chart.

Kikoff is a credit building tool that helps you build credit safely and easily through their innovative platform.

So here’s how it works: you sign up for one of their affordable monthly plans, starting at just $5 per month.

*Plans start at $5/mo for 12 mos. Autopay requires opt-in. Features may vary depending on plan purchased.

Kikoff’s plans are designed to improve key credit factors like positive payment history and lower utilization. So you’re building credit simply by keeping your account open and making on-time payments.

*Individual results may vary. Subject to approval. Terms & conditions may apply. Late or missed payments can have a negative impact on your credit. Make on-time payments to maintain account health.

Those on-time monthly payments get reported to all three credit bureaus, so what you do with Kikoff truly makes an impact.

users with credit under 600 that made on-time payments increased their credit by an average of 25 points in just their first month and up to 86 points after their first year.

*First-month average impact of +25 points for users between Jan-2024 & Nov-2024 who purchased at least one item with Kikoff Credit Account in their first month. Average first-year credit score impact of +86 points between Aug-2024 & Aug-2025 for Kikoff Credit Account users who started with a score below 600; who paid on-time; and who had no delinquencies or collections added to their credit profile during the period. Late payments may negatively impact your credit score. Individual results may vary.

Your Kikoff tradeline can add to your credit profile, helping you build payment history and lowering your credit utilization with on-time monthly payments.

The tradeline is JUST for building credit, it’s not a loan, it’s not for spending money elsewhere.

And listen, I have had bad credit before. It sucks, and there’s a lot of unfair shame and stigma that comes with it that absolutely shouldn’t be there. It happens to the best of us. And it can impact you in big ways— you can’t take out a loan if you need it or, if you do, the interest rates are obscene.

Having bad credit closes a lot of doors for you and improving your credit can impact a lot of things in your life, like the car you drive and the house you might one day own.

So if your credit is holding you back, Kikoff provides a solution that can help you build it safely and easily.

And Kikoff is giving my audience 80% off your first month! That’s as low as $1 for your first month. Click the link in my description to take advantage of this offer and build up that credit.

*Must sign up via getkikoff.com/leeja. Subject to approval, offer subject to change. Offer only applies when signing up with a valid email address. Terms & conditions may apply.

Thanks to Kikoff for partnering with me on today’s video!

Last year, Louisiana v. Callais came before the supreme court, and they heard oral arguments. Then on the last day of their term last year, instead of making a ruling the Supreme Court announced that they would be rehearing the oral arguments this term, and asked the parties to submit briefing on that constitutional question. As a refresher, the relevant part of the 14th Amendment says no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And the 15th Amendment says “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” These amendments were passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War to explicitly address anti-black racism that had prevented black people from obtaining equal protection of the laws and from having a voice in their representative government. It was definitively not race-blind it was meant to right the wrongs of the horrific, centuries-long practice of human bondage in this country in order to attempt to give the people suffering from the long-lasting negative impacts of having endured horrific inhumane treatment for centuries some semblance of equality. That is the spirit of those amendments. And the Voting Rights Act was meant to further solidify those rights enshrined in those amendments because even after the 15th Amendment was passed, many states, especially states like Louisiana in the south, were continuing to infringe on black peoples’ right to vote through things like horribly unfair literacy tests and poll taxes. None of these laws were meant to be “race blind” and were instead explicitly meant to fix centuries of abuse and inequality.

But of course white people weren’t ready to go quietly into the night and accept that maybe they would have to cede some of their power, so the backlash against the amendments and against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was swift. And today, the common conservative argument against the Voting Rights Act and protections against racial gerrymandering is that being race neutral and “color blind” is the only correct, non-discriminatory stance to take. In effect, by taking race into consideration at all, you are discriminating against me, the white person, and that is against the Constitution. However, unfortunately, we do not live in a race-blind utopia where everyone has gained parity and the only difference in outcomes depends on how hard you work. If you can believe it, a few decades of laws protecting voting rights did not undo a few centuries of LITERAL HUMAN BONDAGE. And then 100 years of overtly racist anti-black laws. Black people continue to live with the consequences of overt racism in housing leading to less accumulated generational wealth, concentration into the cities, and low affordable housing stock forcing them to live in less than ideal conditions and then be blamed themselves for the horrible conditions their landlords are responsible for. Black people continue to live with the proven biases against them in hiring practices, violence against them enacted by police, not to mention the day to day racism they have to endure from infancy through adulthood. Whether it's the unconscionably high rates of infant and maternal mortality in black populations compared to the rest of the population or just the racist epithets thrown at people as they’re trying to navigate the world. Not to mention intergenerational transmission of trauma but lord knows that’s too many syllables for your average racist to understand. The POINT IS we have not arrived at a place where we can say race is no longer a factor and everyone is equal therefore any consideration of race at all is racist against the other races. You don’t get to rig the game for 200 years and then claim well now we’ve stopped discriminating so everything is fine and now if we keep talking about how we rigged the game for 200 years that’s actually discrimination against me. But that’s exactly how the MAGA movement thinks. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg quipped in an older case trying to gut parts of the voting rights act, you wouldn’t use an umbrella in a rainstorm to stay dry and then get rid of that umbrella because you are dry. The voting rights act was the thing allowing for some semblance of a pluralistic democracy in this country. You don’t throw out the thing that’s working, it hasn’t solved the problem it IS the solve to the problem.

But the Supreme Court has been slowly chipping away at the Voting Rights Act for a WHILE, using that same argument, that, well, problem is solved, everything is fixed, we don’t need it anymore. In Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 the Supreme Court did away with pre-clearance, which is a provision of section 5 of the voting rights act which required any new law regarding voting rights passed in states with histories of discrimination must first be approved by the Justice Department. Back in 2013 the court decided hey guess what we’ve reached a place where we no longer need to control against these racist states, they’ve done their time, we’ve all moved on, and now our society is just and equal, isn’t that grand. And they did away with pre-clearance, and instantaneously within hours and days and months those historically racist states, well what do ya know, they passed new racist anti-voting laws. Weird it’s almost like a few decades of the Voting Rights Act didn’t undo a few centuries of literal human bondage, wild. Like we literally chained human beings to auction blocks and sold them to the highest bidder for centuries. We shoved them into boats and stacked them on top of each other like cattle. And then we made a thriving economy worth billions of dollars on the back of their free labor, labor we never paid for, labor that created wealth that white people still benefit from today. And then we fought a war and said hey you’re free now, but no you can’t live there, no no you can’t live there, no you can’t have a voice in your representation, no you can’t go to THAT school, no you can’t get a mortgage, no you can’t drive through that town after dark, no you can’t expect to live through the birth of your child, no you can’t get that job. But in MAGA world we need to move on from that like literally why do you keep talking about it why do you hate your country so much, we passed an act about it, it’s been SIXTY YEARS!! We’ve moved on, can’t you just focus on the future???

And the “non-african american” litigants in Louisiana v. Callais are boiling it down to an oversimplified argument–race was taken into consideration when drawing this map with 2 majority-black districts. That violates my equal protection under the 14th amendment and my right to not have my vote abridged on account of my race under the 15th amendment. But that argument is disingenuous. There’s a reason we look to the intent of the people who passed a law in order to determine how to interpret a law. It is deeply important to look at the context of laws and the constitution to understand what the meaning is when applied to a set of facts, especially in this context where we are still very much dealing as a society with the consequences of slavery and racism. And the fact is that the 14th and 15th Amendments are not color-blind amendments, they were passed during a very specific part of our history immediately after the civil war to right the wrongs of centuries of human bondage and they ought to be interpreted as such as it applies to the voting rights act. We have not solved the issue of racism in this country and we will in many ways never fully heal the wounds that that level of horrific violence causes to a society. There are people alive now whose grandparents were enslaved by white people. White people don’t get to turn around and tell them alright lets wrap it up it’s time to move on now. But the litigants in Louisiana v Callais would have us believe that the writers of the 14th and 15th amendment had them in mind when they were writing the Amendments and that their right to not give black people an equal voice in voting is equal to or actually supersedes the right of black people having an equal voice in voting. That in blocking their right to discriminate against black people the court is discriminating against them.

They are also trying to paint a picture that the Voting Rights Act and the subsequent legislation and cases interpreting it create a simple rule where states are allowed to consider race when drawing district lines in favor of black people but not in favor of white people. The reality is that there is a complex web of guidelines and restrictions when it comes to drawing district lines under the voting rights act that help ensure the very thing I’ve been arguing for–that historical and present day context are taken into consideration, that the maps being drawn are truly equal and fair, to try to counterbalance the overt racism exhibited by states for centuries with regards to voting. It’s not a simple, blanket, we just give black people as much power as possible.

However, none of that matters now, as the Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday basically rendered any protections for the votes of racial minorities unconstitutional. Let’s go through this 92-page decision and dissent briefly. You can read the full thing for yourself in my list of sources which is linked in the description as always. Basically, the majority opinion, written by Samuel Alito, decides, despite its own precedent and despite the intent of Congress, that when a party wants to bring a claim under section 2 of the voting rights act related to racial gerrymandering, they have to prove not racist OUTCOMES or effect of laws but instead racist INTENT of the creation of the gerrymandered map. So whereas before there was concern that the outcome of a gerrymandered map, no matter what the underlying intent was, would disproportionately impact the ability of minority voters to have their vote count, and preventing that, instead now the court is saying the person bringing a section 2 claim has to prove that there is a “strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred” when lawmakers drew the maps. This is nearly impossible to prove. There is almost never a smoking gun that someone can point to and say see here is proof they drew this map based on racism. That would require like a statement or an email or something where the lawmaker says yes let’s draw this map so that black peoples’ votes don’t count. You’re not gonna get that. And the majority knows that.

It is especially difficult given the fact that it is hard to disentangle race from party preference in this country. There is a strong correlation between being black and voting Democrat and being white and voting Republican in this country. And the majority has decided that to win a section 2 claim, claimants need to be able to disentangle race from politics and rule out that politics was the deciding factor in how a map is drawn. The court laments that otherwise a gerrymander that happens because of political decisions, to try to strengthen Republican strongholds, could be repackaged into a racial gerrymandering case, because race and political party preference are so strongly linked. They seem to be unconcerned that the opposite can also be true–that a racial gerrymander can be repackaged into a political gerrymander so the lawmakers can say hey we just care about keeping Republicans in power, it’s just a COINCIDENCE that all the black voters have been diluted to the point that their votes don’t matter. Which is WHY we SHOULD care about disparate impact NOT just discriminatory intent. And if you’re like okay but why is PARTISAN gerrymandering even allowed at all, that’s thanks to the Supreme Court as well, because, basically, states’ rights. States should be allowed to determine how they draw their lines so long as it isn’t against the constitution. And the court has held that drawing districts based on partisanship doesn’t violate the constitution.

In fact, in this decision the court went further, saying that in order for a section 2 claimant to win, they also have to prove that there is a different possible map that could be drawn that still achieves all of the lawmakers priorities, including political gerrymandering. So not only is it impossible to disentangle race from political affiliation and the majority knows that, they’re also saying you have to draw a new map that keeps the political gerrymander of choice in place while also not discriminating. You have computers now, just do it. Knowing full well that that’s an impossible task, and fully embracing that political gerrymandering is an acceptable way of life here.

The majority tries to sell this to us as just a minor tweak to how we interpret section 2 cases. They’re completely neutering the law by making it impossible to prove, but yeah it’s just a lil tweak. They say this tweak is reasonable because “vast social change has occurred through the country and particularly in the South where many section 2 suits arise.” Right. BECAUSE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. Holy shit. Again, you don’t throw away your umbrella in a rain storm just because you’re dry. You’re dry BECAUSE OF THE UMBRELLA. The majority is buying into the notion that everything is fixed, we’re in a post-racial world, and the ultimate goal is to have a quote unquote “color-blind” constitution. Even though the constitution, when it was written, was not color blind. Far from it. This is of course the problem of anything attempting to enforce “color blindness.” It simply ignores centuries of non-color blindness, of open racism, the effects of which we’re still seeing, and it says hey get over it already.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. In it, she says quote “I dissent. The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—“one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history.” Shelby County, 570 U. S., at 562 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court. I dissent, then, from this latest chapter in the majority's now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

Okay, so what does the outcome of this case mean in practical terms for the 2026 midterms or all other elections going forward. Early voting in Louisiana begins this weekend, so the Louisiana legislature is likely going to move fast to try to approve its gerrymandered map that puts most of the black people in the state into one district and dilutes their votes in all the others. Racist gerrymandering masquerading as politically-based gerrymandering can now move full steam ahead. We no longer care about the racial implications of how districts are drawn, bringing a case trying to claim racist gerrymandering is now effectively impossible. The extreme political polarization in this country will continue to deepen as there is no reason now for either side to hold back on attempting to gain as many seats as possible for whichever party dominates each state. Given the growing numbers of non-white populations in this country, much to the chagrin of Trump’s goons who want white people to have more babies, that means Republican states will benefit from the increased representation that results from the larger numbers of inhabitants, while also gerrymandering those minority voters’ votes into oblivion.

It will now be up to individual states to determine whether they want to allow political gerrymandering. Some already outlaw it in their constitutions, some have independent commissions that attempt to draw district lines without political agendas, but many are wholly embracing political gerrymandering as the only way to maintain or try to obtain control of Congress. Or Congress could add an amendment to section 2 to clarify their meaning and try to undo the court’s decision in Callais, something that is unlikely given the current makeup of Congress and the fact that Congress can’t get anything done. As Ian Millhiser wrote for Vox, quote “More broadly, Callais is such an effusive love letter to the concept of partisan gerrymandering that it is likely to eliminate any remaining concerns political parties may have that the Supreme Court might push back if states draw maps too obviously rigged in their favor. Callais effectively rules that racial gerrymandering is also allowed, so long as it also achieves partisan ends.”

Additionally, non-white members of Congress and state legislatures are likely going to disappear, especially in the GOP. And conservatives are chomping at the fucking bit to get these gerrymandered maps drawn up and passed as quickly as possible. All signs are pointing to largely a free for all, on both sides of the aisle, of political gerrymandering that will render large swaths of votes completely inconsequential, depending on where you live. It’s unclear how quickly these changes will take place. Given the fact that primaries for some elections are starting literally now, there’s a good chance that we won’t see the worst of it until after the midterms, but 2028 is a long ways off and that gives state legislatures a LOT of time to fuck around and find out.

To me, what I can’t stop thinking about is how the only real solve in all of this is, frankly, the two things I always come back to: getting rid of our 2 party winner take all system, and getting money out of politics. Hear me out. The voting rights act is meant to protect a pluralistic democracy, and it is absolutely paramount that everyone, regardless of race, has their vote counted equally. That is not happening, and it is going to get worse thanks to out of control political gerrymandering. But even if every state decided to take a politically neutral stance towards drawing district lines, our voices still count differently depending on where we live. The electoral, winner take all system means that 3-5 states decide the presidential election in any given year. The rest of our votes are a foregone conclusion. The makeup of the Senate, with its equal representation among all states, means that while Republicans technically have a majority in the Senate, they only represent 47% of the country’s population. And because our politicians are completely beholden to the interests of the richest people on the planet, those of us not in the top .1% hold literally zero sway over whether laws get passed. There are so MANY ways in which this democracy is broken and not functioning as a democracy, ways that have been solved by other countries where they have enacted stricter campaign finance laws, where they have multiparty parliamentary systems and ranked choice or other styles of voting that allow for more peoples’ votes to count more equally, there are so many better systems than ours that the voting rights act was just placing a band aid over anyway, that while I do agree with calls from people that if Democrats ever take over Congress again they should amend the voting rights act to make it stronger and they should reform the Supreme Court with term limits and increasing the number of justices, that’s all well and good but in many fundamental ways our system still will never truly equally represent the will of the people unless we find solutions to the bigger problems of our two party system and the devastating blow that monied interests have against the functioning of our democracy. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court may have dealt a final blow to the Voting Rights Act, but it truly is the whole system that needs major reform if we ACTUALLY want a true representative democracy in this country.

If you watch all these videos and somehow aren’t subscribed yet, please consider doing so, it is a great, free way to help support this channel. To support my work, please consider joining on YouTube, Substack, or Patreon to get all these episodes completely ad free as well. Also if you like my Reagan Ruined Everything tshirt you can get one for yourself at leeja miller merch dot com. Thank you to my multi-platinum patrons Christopher Cowan, Evan Friedley, Marc, Sarah Shelby, Dennis Smith, Art, David, L’etranger (Lukus), Thomas Johnson, and Tay. Your generosity makes this channel what it is, so thank you!

And if you liked this episode, you’ll like my episode from Tuesday about the White House Correspondents Dinner shooting.