WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Louisiana v. Callais, a case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether to reverse a district court decision that held unconstitutional the map the Louisiana legislature enacted to remedy a prior violation of the Voting Rights Act, Constitutional Accountability Center Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans issued the following reaction:

The issue at the heart of Louisiana v. Callais is whether the conservative-dominated Roberts Court will make enforcement of the Voting Rights Act more difficult by authorizing courts to micromanage state remedial maps that were enacted to cure violations of the Act and respect the voting rights of communities of color.

For decades, Supreme Court precedent has insisted that state legislatures must have “breathing room” to strike a balance between competing considerations in drawing fair maps that comply with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. The question looming over this case is whether states will be afforded this same broad latitude when they seek to remedy violations of the Voting Rights Act.

As Justice Elena Kagan commented during this morning’s oral argument, if there is any case that typifies the need for breathing room, it is this case. Louisiana drew the map at issue in this case after extensive litigation over Louisiana’s 2022 map that resulted in a finding that the state’s map likely violated the Voting Rights Act—a finding that was affirmed by two different panels of the Fifth Circuit. The map challenged in this case corrected that Voting Rights Act violation, while also furthering the legislature’s political goals.

The Supreme Court should not take from states the broad leeway they currently have to draw maps that remedy Voting Rights Act violations. Doing so would be inconsistent with long recognized principles of federalism and would make it harder to enforce our constitutional promise of a multiracial democracy.