Opinion>Opinions - Lindsey's Lens

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Supreme Court strips Voting Rights Act in Louisiana gerrymandering ruling

Comments:

by Lindsey Granger, opinion contributor - 04/30/26 2:22 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Lindsey Granger, opinion contributor - 04/30/26 2:22 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

NOW PLAYING

The Supreme Court just made a decision that could quietly, but significantly, reshape how Americans vote, especially across the South. And at the center of it is one of the most important civil rights laws in this country: the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Here’s what happened.

In a 6–3 ruling, the court limited how Section 2 of that law can be used. That’s the part that’s been the main tool for challenging maps that dilute the voting power of Black and minority communities.

This case came out of Louisiana, where lawmakers drew a second majority-Black congressional district after courts said the original map underrepresented Black voters, who make up about a third of the state. That new district helped elect a Black Democrat. But now, the Supreme Court says that map relied too heavily on race.

For decades, Section 2 has required states to consider race to make sure minority voters aren’t shut out. Now, the court is essentially saying you can’t lean on race too much, even when you’re trying to fix discrimination.

So what does that actually mean?

It raises the bar for proving racial discrimination in voting maps. And it gives states more room to argue that their maps are about politics, not race — even when the outcome disproportionately affects communities of color.

Civil rights leaders are sounding the alarm.

Many say this doesn’t technically erase the Voting Rights Act, but it weakens it to the point where it may not work the way it was designed to. Justice Elena Kagan put it plainly in her dissent, warning the decision “threatens a half-century’s worth of gains in voting equality.”

And then there’s the political reality.

Analysts say this could help Republicans pick up seats, potentially shifting the balance of power in Congress, because many of these majority-minority districts tend to lean Democratic.

So yeah, this is about law. But it’s also about power. Here’s Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries: “Today’s decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act and is designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all over this country to elect their candidate of choice.”

Whether you agree with his framing or not, it reflects a real concern: that the guardrails that once protected fair representation are shifting.

The Voting Rights Act was born out of the Civil Rights Movement to open the ballot box to Black Americans who were systematically denied access. It wasn’t just policy — it was protection.

So when those protections get narrowed, even subtly, it raises a bigger question: Are we moving toward a system that prioritizes “race-neutral” rules, even if the outcomes aren’t equal?

This is bigger than one district in Louisiana. It’s about who gets a voice, and how easy it is to take that voice away.

Lindsey Granger is a NewsNation contributor and co-host of The Hill’s commentary show “Rising.” This column is an edited transcription of her on-air commentary.

Add as preferred source on Google