The Supreme Court’s April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais has and will continue to shake up the future of congressional redistricting, racial gerrymandering and voting access, said law professor Pamela Karlan and history professor James Campbell M.A. ’83 Ph.D. ’89 at a Tuesday fireside chat.
Karlan and Campbell joined StanfordVotes as part of Civics Week. Campbell, whose work focuses on African American history, began the discussion in the context of post-Civil War America, acknowledging historic gains in voting equality through Reconstruction followed by reactionary policies like the poll tax.
Campbell noted that after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, litigation became a primary “device to reform.” Congressional maps became contentious topics as racist intention and effect were evaluated by the Court as reasons to strike down proposed districts.
In the landmark decision, the Court established new conditions to challenge racially gerrymandered maps, emphasizing that gerrymandering could be justified as political rather than racially motivated. It deemed two majority-minority districts — electoral districts where racial minority groups make up over half the population — in Louisiana unconstitutional instances of racial gerrymandering.
Originally created by the Louisiana state legislature in 2024 to increase representation for Black communities, these districts have since been redrawn, and only one remains as majority-minority. The legal challenge in this case stemmed from Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Karlan maintained that “the Constitution is committed to not having people’s race exclude them from civic life.”
Reflecting on her work in the field, Karlan noted that before Callais, legal advocacy originated from claims of either racist intention or effect in gerrymandering. Karlan criticized the difficulty in differentiating between political and racial gerrymandering that the Court now demands for cases post-Callais, especially in areas where race correlates strongly with party affiliation.
Karlan lamented that under Callais, political gerrymandering has now become such a “legitimate interest that it is a defense to the argument that you are being racially unfair.”
Both Campbell and Karlan agreed that the case might make majority-minority districts harder to create, with Karlan also noting that many Republican majority states had already redrawn their districts to remove Democratic-leaning seats after the Callais ruling.
Beyond the direct effects of Callais, voter suppression and intimidation remain relevant — the Supreme Court is currently scheduled to hear Arizona’s attempt to “knock [registered voters] off the list,” stemming from a suspicion of undocumented voters. When asked by an audience member about how citizens can push for voting rights, both Campbell and Karlan asserted that a primary focus should be to continue voting.
“I don’t see any alternative in this long haul except to vote,” Campbell said. “Vote, register to vote and [consort] with people who might not share any of your fundamental values, but believe in the value of democracy.”