Voting Rights Act
1965 landmark US law barring discriminatory voting; Section 2 gutted by SCOTUS Callais ruling, May 2026.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act no longer requires majority-minority congressional districts after Louisiana v. Callais, decided on 29 April 2026 and given immediate effect on 4 May; Tennessee, Alabama and Louisiana erased majority-Black seats within weeks.
Last refreshed: 1 October 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
With Section 2 gutted, what federal protection remains for minority voters in redistricting?
Timeline for Voting Rights Act
Mentioned in: S. Carolina voter-help cap survives suit
US Midterms 2026Mentioned in: Justices keep Missouri on its 2022 map
US Midterms 2026Mentioned in: Dhillon plans 1,000 DOJ poll monitors
US Midterms 2026Cited alongside Title 18 in the NAACP complaint
US Midterms 2026: NAACP sues DHS over ICE at the pollsMentioned in: Georgia keeps its maps after remand
US Midterms 2026Background
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the federal law against racial discrimination in voting. Section 2, its permanent nationwide provision, bars any voting rule that denies or abridges the vote on account of race. For four decades courts read it, under Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), to require majority-minority districts where minority voters were cohesive and consistently outvoted.
the Supreme Court has narrowed the Act three times. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) ended preclearance, Brnovich v. DNC (2021) narrowed vote-denial claims, and Louisiana v. Callais (2026) removed the districting duty. Cases decided under the old standard are being reopened: on 25 August the Eleventh Circuit vacated a judgment against Georgia's maps and sent it back for review under Callais.
The Act still frames voting disputes beyond district lines. The NAACP and eight other groups cited it in their 18 September suit to keep immigration agents away from polling places.
Section 2 lost its districting mandate
Under Thornburg v. Gingles, Section 2 had required states to draw majority-minority districts where its test was met. On 29 April the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that the section imposes no such duty, and the judgment issued forthwith on 4 May.
Districts created under the old reading went first. Tennessee's 7 May map removed the majority-Black 9th district in Memphis. Alabama's second majority-Black district fell when the Supreme Court vacated the order protecting it on 11 May, and Louisiana's map of 4 June drew out Representative Cleo Fields, whose seat Section 2 litigation had created. Section 2 still bans racially discriminatory voting rules, but a state accused of racial line-drawing can now answer by pleading partisan motive, as Tennessee did before a federal panel on 23 July.
State constitutions inherit the map fight
With Section 2 narrowed, the challengers to Florida's 24R-4D map relied on the state's own 2010 Fair Districts Amendment, which bans partisan gerrymanders and sits outside the federal ruling. They sued within hours of the map's signing on 4 May.
At a hearing on 15 and 16 May the state's lawyers argued that Callais voided the amendment as well. Judge Joshua Hawkes kept the map in force on 26 May while the suits continue, calling it "the lesser of two evils". Candidate qualifying closed on 13 June, so the state-law route that Callais left open produced no new district for 2026.