I wrote an article in the May issue of the Stand Up For Workers newsletter about the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. I only briefly mentioned the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution in that piece.
The Callais majority decision effectively determined that Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, while claiming that it was merely “updat[ing]” the framework for determining whether Sec. 2 has been violated. That was a cynical exercise of the conservative majority’s power. The majority opinion would have been more intellectually honest if it had said what it was doing. The claim that it was just updating the Sec. 2 framework fooled no one.
Sec. 2 was enacted pursuant to both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the states from “deny[ing] or abridg[ing]” the “right of citizens of the United States to vote” because of their “race.” In fact, the Fifteenth Amendment is the only provision in the Constitution that expressly prohibits racial discrimination.
Southern states diluted Black citizens’ votes by gerrymandering congressional districts as early as the 1870s. The Supreme Court in 1980 rejected a claim of racial dilution pursuant to Sec. 2 because the plaintiffs had not proven that the dilution scheme was done for a racial reason. Congress rejected that interpretation of Sec. 2.
In its 1982 amendments to the VRA, it expressly supported racial-dilution claims and provided that it is not necessary to prove discriminatory intent to prevail on such claims. Congress had the power to adopt the amended Sec. 2 pursuant to the Fifteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the “power to enforce this [amendment] by appropriate legislation.” The Supreme Court, in 1966, decided that “Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting.” The Callais majority concluded that that Fifteenth Amendment power is limited to efforts to end intentional racial discrimination in voting. The majority reasoned that redistricting for partisan reasons does not violate Sec. 2. But voting by Black voters in the South is highly partisan now, as it was in the 1870s and 1880s. Partisan redistricting is racial redistricting, especially in the South, where almost all Black individuals and relatively few white people vote for Democrats. Congress amended Sec. 2 because Southern state legislatures solemnly stated that they had no racial animus is drawing district lines.
That is nonsense. Of course they did, since they knew the penalties of being honest about their intent.
State legislatures are populated and advised by lawyers. State legislators are acutely aware of the importance of legislative district boundaries. They know where the district boundaries are located and know that Black voters in the South overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.
The drawing of district boundaries is an intentional act. Sec. 2 was amended because evidence of racial results is evidence of racial intent. It is not necessary to find direct evidence of racial intent, since that intent is inferred from legislatures’ intentional decisions to create districts that result in racial discrimination.
Callais is written from the perspective of the white majority legal and political system in this country. Black citizens in the South – with the apparent exception of Justice Thomas – understand that racial discrimination is alive and well in their state legislatures. The Voting Rights Act was adopted to end that discrimination. As a result of Callais, that discrimination is alive and well.
It is ironic that as this country celebrates the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the aftermath of the peculiar institution of slavery continues to rear its ugly head in the heart of this democracy. The Callais decision will destroy Black representation in most of the South, until and unless it is overturned or until Congress abolishes partisan gerrymandering or requires proportional representation for congressional districts.
*******
On June 2, 2026, by a vote of 6-3, a majority of the Supreme Court granted a motion for stay in Allen v. Milligan, after a three-judge panel in the Southern District of Alabama concluded that the Alabama state legislature had intentionally discriminated on the basis of race in creating a legislative map that included only one Black-majority congressional district.
The Supreme Court decided in the same case in 2023 that Alabama’s congressional map unlawfully discriminated on the basis of race against Black residents of that state. The district court then held an 11-day trial in which 51 witnesses testified and almost 800 exhibits were exhibited into evidence. The district court concluded that the legislature acted with a discriminatory purpose and not for partisan reasons. The Supreme Court ignored that clear evidentiary record in allowing Alabama to hold an election with only one Black-majority district this year.
Written by Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member
