For years, Louisianians have organized, legislated, and litigated for the promise of a fair and representative congressional map. On Oct. 15, LDF returns to the Supreme Court to reargue Louisiana v. Callais, and to defend and protect the rights of Black Louisiana voters.
Louisiana v. Callais is the latest attempt to erode the protections of the Voting Rights Act by aiming to limit Section 2’s application in the redistricting process. There should be no question — the law and the facts call for fair maps.
This case is not just about Louisiana’s congressional map. It’s about whether communities of color across the country can have meaningful representation.
Fair representation can lead to real change for Black Louisianians. Responsive and accountable leadership in Congress can help improve health care access, educational disparities, environmental safety, infrastructure, and more.
Louisiana v. Callais is a redistricting case before the Supreme Court that will determine the future of Louisiana’s congressional map. At its core, Louisiana v. Callais is about equal representation for Black voters in Louisiana and the role of race in redistricting. The court will determine if Louisiana lawmakers properly balanced constitutional and other federal voting protections when enacting a new congressional map with two majority-Black districts in 2024, following years of separate litigation showing that a second district where Black voters had an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice was likely required to comply with the Voting Rights Act after the State passed a map with only one in 2022.
This case is not just about Louisiana, however. It’s about whether communities of color across the country can have meaningful representation. The outcome of the case will not only impact Louisiana but will also forecast the resilience of our democratic values and could shape the future of redistricting cases nationwide. The critical victories of the Civil Rights Movement and our right to a free, fair, and representative democracy hang in the balance.
Reargument is a unique circumstance and happens only rarely. It is not often that the court issues an order for a case to be reargued, and it can signal that the court is weighing a highly consequential decision.
When the Supreme Court has chosen to rehear cases in the past, it was often a signal of deeper engagement. The decisions in these cases have typically expanded, not contracted, constitutional protections. Some of the most important rulings in American history were reargued, including Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, and Miranda v. Arizona.
The order for reargument in this case focuses on the specific legal question of whether Louisiana violated the 14th or 15th Amendments by intentionally creating a second majority-Black congressional district. The reargument raises critical questions about how Section 2 of the VRA — which prohibits racial discrimination in voting policies and district maps, and is among the VRA’s most critical provisions to safeguard fair representation — applies in Louisiana, specifically, and could implicate whether courts and lawmakers can continue to use the law’s tools to remedy maps that dilute the voting power of Black people and other voters of color nationwide.
Redistricting is a process where elected officials or redistricting commissions redraw the lines that make up electoral districts. These districts are the geographical areas from which political representatives are elected on the local, regional, state, and federal levels. The residents of each electoral district vote for who will govern them and represent them — in the U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, county commissions, city councils, school boards, and more.
According to the U.S. Constitution, all electoral districts within a given redistricting map must contain approximately the same number of people. But there are many other factors and criteria that also influence how district lines are drawn — for example, districts must be drawn to comply with the central requirements of the VRA and should not dilute minority voting strength. Redistricting requires an accurate count of the people living in each district, so it coincides with the U.S. census and normally happens every 10 years.
Where district lines are drawn may determine where residents can vote, for whom they can vote, and even how responsive elected officials are to constituents’ requests.
Electoral maps can hide mechanisms to silence Black voters and drastically impact Black voters’ opportunities to elect candidates of their choice — candidates who understand their experiences, will serve their communities honestly, and prioritize solutions and resources that communities desire.
The district you vote in can affect every part of your life, and fair legislative maps mean you have an opportunity to make positive changes in areas that impact you every day. Fair maps mean having a say in lower prices, better schools, safer streets, accessible health care, fresher food, and so much more. Fair maps mean a shot at making changes for good.
In 2022, the Louisiana Legislature passed a discriminatory congressional map that was challenged in court as a violation of Section 2 of the VRA. After years of litigation, during which multiple federal courts found that Louisiana’s congressional map likely violated the VRA, the courts ordered the Louisiana Legislature to pass a map that complied with the VRA and included two majority-Black districts. In January 2024, the Legislature passed a map, SB 8, that included a second majority-Black district and also accomplished key political objectives, including protecting incumbents such as Speaker Johnson. That map was quickly signed into law.
A group of self-titled “non-African American voters” challenged the new map with two majority-Black districts, aiming to once again undermine Black Louisianians’ political power. These voters claimed that “race was the sole reason” for the district lines despite facts to the contrary.
Opponents of Louisiana’s map do not aim only to overturn it. They now seek to pit critical civil rights protections against one another, claiming that attempting to address racial discrimination under Section 2 is itself discriminatory and violates the 14th and 15th Amendments — the very constitutional provisions adopted in the wake of the Civil War to protect against racial discrimination, including in voting. The VRA was later passed to enforce these exact constitutional principles.
Fair representation can lead to real change for Black Louisianians. Responsive and accountable leadership in Congress can help improve health care access, educational disparities, environmental safety, infrastructure, and more.
Louisiana v. Callais impacts not only Black voters in Louisiana but every voter in this country, who risks losing their say in how America’s future unfolds if voter protections are further weakened. Louisiana v. Callais has always been about equal representation, but now the decision could forever transform the future of our elections and our democracy.
That is why LDF is devoting every resource available to fight for fair representation.
2025 marks 60 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This history-making law marked the beginning of a transformation in our pursuit of a multiracial democracy.
The VRA enshrined protections for voters across the country who were historically denied access to the ballot box. It was one of the most significant achievements of the Civil Rights Movement, ending Jim Crow-era tactics that prevented Black voters from exercising their fundamental rights.
The VRA unquestionably changed the voting rights landscape for the better. The Legal Defense Fund and many other advocates and organizations have a deep historical connection to the relentless fight to secure its passage.
But the VRA did not eliminate all obstacles to the ballot box. For the past 60 years, that fight has continued. Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting policies and district maps, is among the VRA’s most critical provisions to safeguard fair representation. The reargument in Louisiana v. Callais will address how Section 2 of the VRA applies in Louisiana and the Court’s decision could affect how it is applied in redistricting nationwide.
Louisiana v. Callais is the latest attempt to erode the VRA’s protections by aiming to limit Section 2’s application in the redistricting process.
The VRA was passed and repeatedly reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress to root out racial discrimination in elections, of which our country has a long and well-documented history. In states such as Louisiana, these legacies continue today and make the political process less open to Black communities.
There should be no question — the law and the facts call for fair maps. The Supreme Court’s critical 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan upheld decades of precedent under Section 2 and recognized that attacks on the Black voters’ rights continue today. Argued by LDF, the case led to a second district where Black voters have an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in Alabama and signaled that the same should apply in Louisiana. The precedent is clear, and LDF will continue to fight for the resilience of Section 2 and the promise of a fair political process.
After the Louisiana Legislature passed a discriminatory congressional map in 2022, LDF and co-counsel filed a lawsuit entitled Robinson v. Landry (formerly Robinson v. Ardoin), that challenged the map as a violation of Section 2 of the VRA, arguing that Louisiana’s map weakened Black Louisianians’ voting power.
After years of litigation, during which multiple federal courts found that the map likely violated the VRA, the courts ordered the Louisiana Legislature to pass a map that complied with the VRA and included two majority-Black districts. In January 2024, the Legislature passed a map, SB 8, that included a second majority-Black district which was quickly signed into law.
Shortly after SB 8 became law, a group of “non-African American voters” filed Callais v. Landry, challenging the newly enacted map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Again, represented by LDF and co-counsel, the Robinson litigants quickly intervened, which means they filed in order to become a party in the case, in Callais to defend the rights of Black voters to have a fair and representative map.
After a three-day trial, a divided panel of three federal court judges overturned SB 8 and held that legislators improperly prioritized race, and that the new map was not narrowly tailored to comply with the VRA, despite the previous rulings in Robinson v. Landry requiring the Legislature to pass a map with a second majority-Black district. With the case on appeal, LDF will now represent the Robinson Intervenors as they continue their fight for fair maps at the Supreme Court.
For years, Louisianans have organized, legislated, and litigated for the promise of a fair and representative congressional map. The road has been long, but the fight for fair maps continues. Dive into the details and timeline here.
Want to make your voice heard in the fight for fair maps on social media? We’ve got you covered with graphics and social copy for all platforms.
Redistricting can elevate or silence communities of color in our elections. Now more than ever, it is crucial to learn about the redistricting process and how maps impact political power.
Learn how discriminatory redistricting maps in three states, including Louisiana, pave the way for oppressive legislation.
Understanding the role of race in the redistricting process as a means of ensuring equitable representation and political power is critical.
Filed in 2022, the lawsuit argued that by failing to add a second majority-Black district, the maps dilute Black Louisianans voting power, and deny them an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
We’ve compiled answers to frequently asked questions about the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case Allen v. Milligan and its impact on voting rights and redistricting.
LDF has been fighting for fair maps in key states to ensure that maps are drawn fairly and do not disenfranchise Black voters.
