Voting Rights Ends

James Felton Keith
Oct 15
3 min read

The Supreme Court is keen to end Voting Rights for racial minorities !!!

Risks & Red Lines

Eliminating race-conscious remedies: If remedial racial districting becomes unconstitutional, that could void many existing maps and block future ones—even when clearly needed to remedy past discrimination.
Statutory vs. constitutional conflict: The Court may be setting up a clash between Section 2 (which demands race awareness in some cases) and a newly asserted constitutional colorblindness approach. The Court might pick the Constitution in that conflict.
Chilling effect on litigation: If plaintiffs must meet tougher burdens, civil-rights groups may pull back from challenging bad maps—meaning de facto unchecked power for heavily gerrymandered states.

Why This Matters Now

The Supreme Court has already cut out Section 5 (Shelby County v. Holder 2013).
It weakened Section 4(b) (the coverage formula).
It’s now targeting Section 2 (Louisiana v. Callais, Brnovich v. DNC 2021).

If the Court continues down this road, the Voting Rights Act’s teeth are gone — leaving only the Constitution’s vague Equal Protection Clause, which is harder to prove and doesn’t stop discrimination in advance.

In One Sentence

Provision	Applies To	Timing	Focus	Current Status
Section 2	Whole U.S.	After discrimination	“Results” of racial discrimination	Still active, under attack
Section 5	Historically discriminatory states	Before discrimination	“Intent” & “Effect” (preclearance)	Dead since Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Here’s a sharpened-up synopsis of what’s going on right now (based on today’s AP coverage) — and how the Court seems to be marching down a path toward gutting race-based voting protections. Think of this as the “road map” they seem to be following.

Key developments from today

From the AP live updates, a few themes stand out:

The Supreme Court is probing whether even remedial race-based districting (done under Section 2 obligations) might itself run afoul of the Constitution. AP News
Justices repeatedly questioned whether the creation of majority-minority districts is constitutional in itself, regardless of past discrimination. AP News
Some Justices expressed concern about “racial sorting” or race as a predominant factor in drawing districts — suggesting skepticism or hostility toward maps overtly drawn on racial lines. AP News
There is tension over whether courts should second-guess the legislature’s decision about the number of majority-minority districts. Some Justices seemed uneasy about courts effectively substituting their judgment for political branches. AP News
The Court appears interested in reframing the legal tests themselves — possibly tightening or altering how Section 2 or equal protection doctrine applies in redistricting. AP News

Taken together, these are not benign procedural tweaks. The signals suggest the Court is laying groundwork for a more dramatic shift.

The Likely Path: How Protections Could Be Whittled Away

Here’s the sequence I see unfolding (if the Court continues on its current trajectory):

Stage	Mechanism	Consequence / Weakening of Protection
1. Reconceptualizing “predominance”	The Court may declare that race must rarely (or never) be a predominant factor in drawing districts — even as a remedial measure.	That would dramatically shrink the space in which states can use race as a factor in redistricting.
2. Tightening “narrow tailoring”	Even if a district is race-based under §2, the Court may demand stricter evidence to justify it (i.e. that alternative means won’t work).	Many remedial maps could fail under stricter scrutiny.
3. Constitutional bar on remedial race use	The Court flirted with the question of whether creating a majority-minority district itselfviolates the 14th or 15th Amendments.	If the Court holds that it’s unconstitutional to draw districts on racial lines even to remedy discrimination, §2 becomes toothless in many scenarios.
4. Undermining §2’s reach	The Court could narrow who can sue under §2 or raise the standards for proving vote dilution to the point that fewer claims succeed.	Fewer challenges will survive; redistricting and voter suppression laws become harder to contest.
5. Institutional deference to legislatures	The Court may push courts to give heavy deference to legislatures’ judgment, especially about how many protected districts to create.	Courts less likely to override maps won by legislatures, even when minority voters allege dilution.

If the Court fully embraces this path, the net effect would be: a rollback of enforceable federal protections that allow States to consider race in fixing discrimination — shrinking what minority communities can do under federal law to combat voter dilution.

Donate To This Campaign