The Supreme Court is poised to decide a case that could gut how race plays into American elections — a showdown over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that conservatives have long argued has been stretched beyond its constitutional bounds. What started as a Louisiana redistricting dispute has ballooned into a national debate about whether courts should force states to draw maps based on race rather than traditional, race-neutral criteria. The justices’ willingness to confront this issue head-on is a welcome moment for those who insist the Constitution demands equal treatment, not permanent racial preference.
At the heart of the dispute is a Louisiana map that created a second Black-majority district by stitching together communities across hundreds of miles — a fix ordered by lower courts to comply with Section 2 and then challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. That map was described by critics as engineered to satisfy turnout-based assumptions about race rather than to respect coherent communities of interest. The legal back-and-forth, including a rare order for reargument, shows just how tangled and unsustainable the current framework has become.
Conservative justices have openly signaled skepticism of long-standing doctrines that treat race as a primary factor in drawing districts, and the Court’s questioning suggested they’re ready to reassert constitutional limits on race-conscious remedies. This isn’t about denying anyone the ballot; it’s about stopping courts and federal actors from turning elections into permanent racial engineering projects. If the Court raises the bar for Section 2 claims or narrows its application, it will force plaintiffs and lawmakers to prove genuine, not presumed, racial subordination in each case.
Republicans and constitutional conservatives should embrace a return to colorblind principles and ordinary districting rules that prioritize compactness, communities of interest, and political coherence. The post-Milligan legal landscape already invited a reckoning with race-based remedies, and the high court’s present interest in retooling Section 2 would bring much-needed clarity and restraint to election law. Americans who believe in equal protection under the law should be relieved that the justices are asking tough questions instead of rubber-stamping remedies that entrench racial categories.
Make no mistake: curbing Section 2 as currently applied would have real political consequences, potentially altering the partisan balance in Congress where courts and DOJ orders have previously shaped districts in the South. Critics will howl that this is a power grab by Republicans, but the real power grab has been the decades-long assumption that race must be the dominant factor in mapmaking. Reining that in could restore accountability to state legislatures and put an end to predictable, litigation-driven outcomes that reward the same entrenched interests.
Patriots who cherish constitutional government should watch this fight closely and demand that their representatives defend fair, race-neutral districting rules — not permanent, court-imposed racial quotas. The country does not become more just by making race the constant metric for political power; it becomes more just by treating citizens as individuals with equal rights under the law. If the Supreme Court does what its oath requires and restores balance between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, conservatives should make common cause to preserve the integrity of our elections and the principle of equal treatment for all Americans.
