The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be used, is already reshaping legal battles over state and local election maps — and its greatest effects may be felt at the local level.
An NPR review of federal court records found at least 17 active challenges to maps or election systems for state and local governments that must now reckon with the decision. In the weeks since the high court issued its opinion, lawyers in those cases have been filing briefs arguing over how the Court’s new interpretation should apply in redistricting disputes.
The key change: the Court’s conservative majority said Section 2 should focus on intentional racial discrimination, not on practices that have the effect of diluting minority voting power. Legal experts say that raises a much higher bar for plaintiffs trying to show a map or an at-large election system unlawfully weakens the influence of racial-minority voters.
Local governments have been the primary site of successful Section 2 claims for years. Redistricting experts note that it is often easier in municipal and county contests to draw compact districts where minority populations are large enough to elect their preferred candidates. Federal courts have frequently ordered changes to local maps or voting systems under Section 2, particularly in Southern jurisdictions with racially polarized voting.
Advocates warn the Court’s reinterpretation makes it more likely that white majorities will be able to redraw or preserve boundaries in ways that reduce minority representation. Michael Li of the Brennan Center points out that Section 2 historically helped break down entrenched local political control; now opponents of majority-minority districts may more readily argue they have legitimate political reasons for certain map designs, even in ostensibly nonpartisan bodies like school boards.
Practically speaking, the new standard also requires challengers to disentangle race from partisan preference when trying to demonstrate racially polarized voting. That is difficult at the local level because partisan voting data are often unavailable, creating an additional evidentiary hurdle for plaintiffs.
The change is already affecting litigation. A North Carolina state representative, Rodney Pierce, and another Black voter dismissed a 2023 lawsuit challenging the state Senate map after the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying it effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act’s protections and left them with no legal path to protect Black voting power in their area.
Other ongoing cases now facing a tougher standard include challenges brought by Latino voters to Washington state’s legislative map and to a Pennsylvania school district’s at-large board elections, and a Native American challenge to North Dakota’s legislative map. Some suits previously pursued by the Justice Department have been dropped under its current leadership; the DOJ also filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing Section 2’s redistricting protections are unconstitutional. That shift in federal enforcement, combined with the Court’s decision, has advocates worried that jurisdictions that previously adopted majority-minority districts to comply with Section 2 will try to dismantle them.
One concrete concern is a renewed interest in at-large election systems, where all voters in a jurisdiction elect all seats. Legal scholars say at-large systems can allow a racial majority to win every seat in places with racially polarized voting, leaving minority votes effectively “wasted.” The procedural and evidentiary changes the Court ordered make it easier for local officials to defend at-large systems or to justify changes that diminish district-based minority representation.
There are local examples that illustrate both progress and fragility. In Fayette County, Tenn., a local NAACP branch and Black voters sued over an all-white board of commissioners and ultimately secured a new map with three majority-Black districts. The county held its first primary under the new map shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, and local leaders say they have no immediate plans to redraw districts again. Still, local activists worry commissioners could seek to reverse or undercut gains if election results do not favor them.
Advocacy groups estimate the Court’s narrowing of Section 2 puts roughly 200 Democratic-held state legislative seats — many representing majority-Black districts in the South — at risk of elimination. The high court may further affect enforcement in upcoming cases that could reduce the Voting Rights Act’s remaining reach.
Voting rights lawyers, local organizers, and scholars emphasize vigilance at the local level. With federal enforcement diminished and the legal standard for proving race-based dilution heightened, the future of minority representation in many cities, counties, school districts and state legislative chambers may now depend more heavily on local politics, public participation, and continued litigation under a narrower statute.