Imagine a single court decision handing one political party nearly two dozen congressional seats. Sounds like the plot of a dystopian novel, right? But this isn’t fiction—it’s happening right now. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will take the extraordinary step of rehearing Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could effectively dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the nation’s most crucial safeguard against racially discriminatory redistricting. And here’s where it gets even more alarming: legal experts believe this move signals the court’s far-right majority is poised to gut this provision. If they succeed, the ripple effects will be felt far beyond Louisiana, reshaping political power across the entire country.
But here’s where it gets controversial: Combined with the ongoing gerrymandering efforts by Donald Trump and Republicans, striking down Section 2 could secure an additional 27 safe GOP seats in the U.S. House—with at least 19 directly tied to the loss of this protection. According to a recent analysis by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund, this could cement one-party control of the House for a generation. Is this democracy, or something else entirely?
Let’s break it down. Louisiana v. Callais began when a federal court ruled that the state’s congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Louisiana’s Republican Legislature was ordered to create a second majority-Black district—a fair move, considering Black residents make up roughly a third of the state’s population but had only one out of six congressional districts where they could elect a representative of their choice. But when lawmakers complied, they were promptly sued again—this time by a group of non-Black voters who argued that preventing discrimination was itself discriminatory. Sound backwards? That’s because it is.
Their argument twists the very purpose of the 14th and 15th Amendments, which were designed to protect voting rights, into a weapon to destroy them. Yet, a lower court embraced this logic, and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal. Even Louisiana’s Republican officials—hardly champions of voting rights—initially defended the court-ordered map. But months later, they reversed course, now urging the court to gut Section 2. Why the sudden change of heart? And what does it say about their true intentions?
The danger here isn’t theoretical. Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the rehearing order argues that the court faces a “straightforward choice”: either allow what he calls “racial gerrymandering” under the guise of compliance or admit that a Section 2 violation doesn’t justify race-conscious remedies. In simpler terms, Thomas is saying that even proven racial discrimination in political maps can’t justify efforts to fix it. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has echoed similar sentiments, suggesting Section 2’s protections are temporary and may not stand the test of time. If their reasoning prevails, politicians who gerrymander to silence voters of color will have a new defense: Fixing discrimination is discrimination itself. Orwellian, isn’t it?
The result? A return to the pre-1965 Jim Crow playbook, disguised in legal jargon. If Section 2 falls, we could see an existential shift in power—a system where representation reflects not the will of the people, but the will of those in power. Congress would become insulated from accountability, its makeup preserved by maps designed to protect incumbents. And this is the part most people miss: democracies don’t collapse in one dramatic moment. They erode slowly, deliberately, and often quietly, by design.
The Voting Rights Act was passed to stop those in power from deciding who gets a voice and who doesn’t. If the court removes that protection, it will hand the Trump regime and its allies a powerful tool to weaken fair representation, tighten their grip on power, and push the country further toward authoritarian rule. Without Section 2, Americans would be left with a hollow shell of democracy: elections that appear free but are rigged to keep power in the same hands. Is this the future we want?
The path forward is narrow but exists—and demands urgency. Democrats must act decisively on two fronts. First, redraw maps aggressively wherever possible, without weakening minority voting power, to counter the GOP’s gerrymandering push before 2026. Second, focus relentlessly on retaking Congress, especially the House. If Democrats win back even one chamber, they can use hearings, investigations, and legislative oversight to expose the far right’s manipulation of electoral systems and hold the Supreme Court accountable.
Passing pro-democracy reforms like the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would show that Congress is committed to protecting Americans’ freedom to vote. Even if these bills don’t become law under Trump, they would create momentum for essential legislation when a more amenable Congress and president are in office. But here’s the question: Will we act before it’s too late?
What we’re witnessing is part of a broader pattern. Just as the court stripped away reproductive rights by overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s now threatening another foundational American freedom: the right to fair representation. On Wednesday, voting rights advocates will gather outside the court to demand protection for this right—a reminder that democracy doesn’t defend itself. Congress still has the authority to act, but only if the public applies pressure. We must all mobilize and speak out in defense of fair representation. The court has shown its hand. How will we respond?
