Supreme Court Ruling Weakens Federal Voting Rights, Shifts Focus to State-Level Protections

The US Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais effectively dismantled Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which had been used for decades to ensure minority voters receive fair treatment in drawing districts. The ruling weakens Black voters' power to elect their own representatives and sets off redistricting pushes in an election year.

State Voting Rights Acts Gain New Urgency

Nine blue and purple states have enacted state voting rights acts, which protect voters in the absence of federal protections. Eleven other states, including several in the South, have introduced similar bills.

State-level statutes typically include prohibitions on voter suppression, vote dilution, and voter intimidation, and require pre-clearance of voting changes.

Reactions to the Decision

"We are pushing to pass state voting rights acts nationwide as a state-based alternative to the now defunct federal Voting Rights Act."
— Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund

Nelson acknowledged that advocates need more tools after the ruling stripped "one of the most potent and transformative tools."

Adam Lioz, senior policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, stated that state voting rights acts provide an avenue for states to affirm voting rights and protect minority voters while building momentum for federal action. He noted that even in places with long odds, these proposals can set a positive vision.

Ruth Greenwood, director of the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, described the Supreme Court decision as removing "the single best tool" used for 61 years to combat racial vote dilution, but said that other tools remain.

Legal Challenges Ahead

Some election law experts warn that the Callais decision could lead to legal challenges against state voting rights acts.

Rick Hasen, election law expert at UCLA School of Law, expects new legal challenges relying on Callais, noting that the rightwing Freedom Caucus in Maryland has already called the state's newly passed voting rights act "little more than a symbolic bill" that would "invite endless litigation."

One New York town filed an amicus brief in the Callais case arguing that the New York statute "raises even more grave constitutional concerns than does section 2 of the VRA." Hasen said the decision should "breathe new life" into constitutional attacks on state acts.

"States should not throw in the towel, but instead think creatively about ways to protect voters through race-neutral means."
— Aseem Mulji, senior legal counsel for redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center

Mulji noted that state courts have upheld state voting rights acts when challenged, and that state VRAs are designed to protect voters through race-neutral means.

Background

• California enacted the oldest state voting rights act in 2002.
• A new state voting rights act has been enacted every year since 2018, except 2020.
• Maryland's state voting rights act went into effect on June 9, 2024 — one day before the Callais decision.