Supreme Court Case Could Hand Republicans Over a Dozen House Seats
A case is unfolding at the U.S. Supreme Court that could lead to significant changes in congressional representation across the South, potentially shifting power to the Republican Party. The case, Louisiana v. Callais, questions whether states can draw district lines with considerations of race under Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). A ruling against Section 2 could allow Republicans to pick up more than a dozen seats currently held by Democrats, with a judgment expected before June 2025.
As the implications of this case set off discussions, a tweet captured the attention of conservatives online: “🚨 MASSIVE NEWS: The Republican South is set to GAIN GOP Congressional seats if and when the Supreme Court’s conservative majority strikes down the VRA race-drawn districts for Democrats… it could shift more than a DOZEN Congressional seats to Republicans!”
The lawsuit’s focus highlights how states like Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and Mississippi have traditionally drawn districts that create “majority-minority” areas. These districts aim to ensure that nonwhite voters, especially Black and Hispanic populations, have a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. However, in practice, these candidates have primarily been Democrats.
In Louisiana, where Black residents make up a third of the population, a single district had a Black majority until recently. A federal court mandated a new map for the 2024 elections, establishing a second majority-Black district that allowed Democrat Cleo Fields to win a new seat. This map is now challenged in the lawsuit Callais v. Louisiana, in which non-Black voters argue it constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case twice indicates its importance. Recent oral arguments hinted that the conservative justices might be inclined to limit or eliminate race-based considerations in redistricting. GOP leaders aim for a ruling before the midterms in 2026 so new, race-neutral maps can be implemented.
Experts in redistricting suggest this case represents a shift from race-focused to partisan-driven map-making. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted during the arguments that remedies based on race should not be perpetual and should ideally have a deadline. His viewpoint aligns with previous decisions that have weakened the VRA, including the 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated federal preclearance measures for Southern states.
David Wasserman, a redistricting analyst at the Cook Political Report, predicts Republicans could gain up to 12 House seats if majority-minority districts fashioned under Section 2 are deemed invalid. Wasserman stated, “If Section 2 were struck down, then the robust number of districts held by Black Democrats across the South…could be eliminated.”
This potential shift could shrink the Congressional Black Caucus by roughly 30% and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus by around 11%. In certain states like Alabama and Mississippi, Republican control could extend to all congressional seats, erasing Democratic representation entirely.
This possible partisan transformation carries significant weight. In a closely contested U.S. House, gaining a dozen seats could solidify Republican authority for years to come, especially given that current margins fluctuate within a narrow range of five to ten seats. Such a shift could affect legislation decisions, budget allocations, and impeachment processes, reducing the need for new Republican votes from swing districts.
Republican-led state legislatures are likely to reap the most rewards. States like Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina are reportedly revisiting alternative maps that do not depend on racial demographics. If permitted to implement these maps, they would significantly bolster Republican representation in Congress.
Opponents of Section 2 argue that race-based map creation violates the Equal Protection Clause and contend that the VRA no longer serves its original purpose. Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry emphasized the need for clarity from the Court prior to the 2026 elections, stating, “We must have legal clarity on how maps can be drawn. A mid-cycle change would invite chaos.”
The challenge to Section 2 also has support from the Trump-era Justice Department, which posits that the current application of Section 2 crosses constitutional limits and that society has evolved, making race a non-focal point in drawing districts.
Conversely, civil rights advocates caution that removing Section 2 protections could undermine minority voting power. As Atiba Ellis, a constitutional law professor, warned, “Absent the federal law that would prevent discrimination… the consequences could be tremendous and could be felt for decades.”
Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, asserted that the decision could dismantle years of civil rights progress. “Part of the point… is that what happens in the South doesn’t just stay in the South. This racial gerrymandering… impacts the entire country,” Albright noted.
In Louisiana, the anticipated ruling could dramatically alter the political landscape. The newly drawn map that currently supports two majority-Black districts, established after years of litigation, may no longer exist. Representative Troy Carter (D-New Orleans), who holds one of those two seats, warned that eliminating Section 2 would “silence Black voters” across the state.
A lot of this contention relates back to the “Gingles test,” established in a 1986 Supreme Court case, which determines how to ensure that racial minorities can elect candidates of their choice based on specific criteria. Critics assert that this standard forces states to prioritize racial considerations above other factors when drawing congressional maps.
Amid changing public perspectives against race-focused policies in education and government, as evidenced by recent Supreme Court rulings ending affirmative action in college admissions, the fate of Section 2 remains uncertain. Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued before the Court, saying, “There is no logic in ending protections when racial discrimination is still very much a reality.”
However, the momentum seems to lean towards the conservatives, and preparations are underway on the Republican side. With alternate maps in place and legal challenges testing the framework, GOP-led states across the South are keenly observing developments in Washington. An observer succinctly noted, “The sooner, the better, so we can REDRAW before 2026.”
"*" indicates required fields
