In recent weeks, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most significant civil rights laws in American history, has reemerged at the center of national debate. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that could limit the law’s protection of minority voters, while several states like North Carolina and Louisiana advance redistricting plans that critics say weaken the political influence of Black communities.
These developments raise a critical question: nearly 60 years after its passage, does the Voting Rights Act still function as a safeguard for equal representation, or has its reach been quietly reduced by new political and judicial realities?
How Section 2 Works and Why It Matters
Section 2 is one of the last remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act with significant power. After the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 5, which had required states with histories of racial discrimination to seek federal approval before changing their voting laws, Section 2 became the main legal avenue for challenging voter suppression and gerrymandering.
The provision allows individuals and advocacy groups to sue when electoral maps or voting policies dilute or deny equal representation on the basis of race. But as Reuters reports, the Court’s current conservative majority appears inclined to narrow how Section 2 can be applied, giving states more discretion to claim “race-neutral” redistricting even when the effects may not be neutral at all.
The Case Before the Supreme Court
At the heart of the current legal controversy is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On October 15, the Supreme Court heard arguments over Louisiana’s congressional map, which contains just two majority-Black districts in a state where one-third of residents are Black.
Civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argue that the map violates Section 2 by diluting the voting power of Black Louisianans. Janai Nelson, president of the organization, told PBS News that the case involves “very flagrant violations” of the law and that weakening Section 2 would leave voters “exploited by politicians or people who simply want to perpetuate discrimination.”
Louisiana official Benjamin Aguinaga contends that “Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution.” A ruling in favor of Louisiana could make it harder for courts to require states to draw majority-minority districts, reshaping how voting rights cases are decided nationwide.
Redistricting in North Carolina: A Broader Trend
While the Supreme Court weighs Louisiana’s case, North Carolina lawmakers are advancing their own controversial redistricting plan. The proposal would eliminate the state’s only swing congressional district, one that includes a large Black population, and create a map more favorable to Republicans ahead of the 2026 elections.
Critics say the move represents a broader national strategy by GOP-led legislatures to consolidate partisan control through redistricting. According to PBS News, these maps often have “the effect of diluting Black political power and diminishing the voting strength of communities of color.”
Although the Supreme Court ruled in 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering claims are beyond the reach of federal courts, racial gerrymandering remains legally challengeable under Section 2. If the Court weakens this section, many of those challenges could lose their legal footing, making it harder to contest racially discriminatory maps in federal court.
The Bigger Implications
Experts warn that a ruling in favor of Louisiana could significantly reshape voting rights litigation. Without a strong Section 2, it would become more difficult to prove racial discrimination in redistricting unless it is explicitly acknowledged in state documents or communications.
Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told PBS NewsHour that “it’s not just an issue for the voters who are impacted. It’s an issue for all Americans, because any elected official who is voted on, on a discriminatory map and ultimately winds up legislating is legislating from a discriminatory foundation.”
She also says that while Black voter turnout has improved in recent years, much of that progress has been tied to the protections and deterrent effects of the Voting Rights Act. Weakening the law could lead to gradual declines in representation rather than immediate drops in participation.
What Happens Next
The Court is expected to rule on the Louisiana case in the coming months, and the decision could have ripple effects across the South. If the justices side with Louisiana’s legislature, other states could adopt similar “race-neutral” arguments to defend maps that minimize minority influence.
With key state and congressional elections approaching in 2026, the boundaries being drawn today will help determine who represents millions of Americans tomorrow. Whether Section 2 remains a reliable tool for protecting those voters will soon be up to the Court. For millions of Americans, the implications will be felt not in courtrooms, but in who appears on their ballots, and who ultimately represents them.
