JEFFERSON CITY – Opposition is mounting to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Louisiana vs Callais case.
Assistant Missouri House Minority Leader Marlon Anderson D-St. Louis has issued the followin gstatement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Calais.
“Missourians sadly know firsthand what it means when the law fails to protect their voice at the ballot box. The Voting Rights Act was written in blood: the blood of Selma, the blood of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the blood of every American who was beaten, jailed and killed for the simple act of trying to vote. Today’s Supreme Court majority treated that sacrifice like a footnote.”
The Missouri Legislative Black Caucus condemned in the strongest possible terms the 6-3 ruling saying the decision strikes a devastating blow to Black voters across this nation and guts the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Court ruled that Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, redrawn to create a second majority-Black district, constituted an “illegal racial gerrymander,” effectively watering down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
“Make no mistake: this ruling is not a defense of ‘colorblind democracy,’” MLBC Chairman Rep. Michael Johnson said. “It is a license for those in power to dilute Black political power while hiding behind the Constitution they have chosen to selectively honor.”
For 60 years, the Voting Rights Act has been the landmark civil rights law that restricted racial gerrymandering and racial discrimination in voting. Today, the conservative majority on this Court has eviscerated it, not by striking it down outright, but by rewriting it beyond recognition.
As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, the majority’s changes “eviscerate the law.”
This decision will be felt in Missouri. In many ways, it already is being felt here, as the Republicans in power have been working to draw U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver out of his seat in 2026.
“First they came for affirmative action,” Johnson said. “Then they came for our congressional seats. What will they come for next”?
Missouri State Representative Ray Reed (D–District 83) today released the following statement in response to a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States affecting key protections under the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
“Today’s decision marks a significant and deeply concerning moment for our democracy. For generations, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our nation’s commitment to equal access to the ballot. This ruling places that progress at risk and raises serious questions about our continued dedication to protecting one of our most fundamental rights.
Throughout our history, access to the ballot has too often been contested, particularly for Black Americans. While we have made meaningful progress, moments like this remind us that progress is not permanent.
In Missouri and across the country, we have been preparing for challenges like this, organizing in our communities, strengthening legal strategies, and advancing legislation to ensure every voice is heard. That work will continue with renewed urgency.
At its best, the Court has helped expand liberty and uphold the Constitution. Decisions like this, however, risk eroding public confidence in its role as a fair and impartial institution.
That is why I join others in calling for swift federal action, including passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, to restore critical protections for voters. We must also engage in a serious conversation about how to strengthen public trust in our institutions, including thoughtful consideration of reforms that reinforce judicial independence and accountability.
This moment demands resolve. We must meet it.”
Rep. Reed emphasized that protecting access to the ballot remains a top priority for his office and reaffirmed his commitment to working with community leaders, advocacy organizations, and colleagues at every level of government to safeguard voting rights.
As legislative sessions continue across the country, Rep. Reed noted that states must also play a role in protecting democratic participation and ensuring that all eligible voters can make their voices heard.
The ACLU of Louisiana stated: The Supreme Court…struck down Louisiana’s congressional map and issued a ruling that eviscerates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and opens the door for states to enact discriminatory maps with impunity. As a result, Black voters and other voters of color could face the elimination of districts across the country that have provided fair representation.
Section 2 has long served as the primary nationwide protection against discriminatory voting systems following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which eliminated the Act’s preclearance system. (The) ruling effectively eliminates that remaining enforcement mechanism in all but name.
With a severely narrowed Section 2, voters challenging racially discriminatory maps and voting laws will face higher legal barriers and fewer statutory protections. The decision affects not only congressional redistricting but challenges to state legislative and local election systems across the country.
“This decision is a profound betrayal of the legacy of the civil rights movement. By gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court has weakened the primary legal tool that voters of color rely on to challenge discriminatory maps and election systems. In practical terms, this means that even where racial discrimination in voting is clear and ongoing, communities will be left without the most significant weapon they have to stop states from drawing districts that dilute their political power. Representation for Black, Latino, Native, and other voters of color will increasingly depend on the goodwill of legislatures rather than enforceable law, allowing discriminatory systems to persist unchecked and making meaningful political representation far harder to achieve,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.
“The Supreme Court has reversed decades of progress toward a multiracial democracy in the name of partisan politics. The 6-3 majority decision is the height of hypocrisy and exemplifies the Court’s waning credibility on matters of civil rights and racial justice. The ruling is devastating for Black Louisiana voters and for fair representation for all voters of color,” said Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. “It also undermines the legitimacy of institutions that rely on fair maps to represent the American people. This is a day of shame for the Supreme Court. The majority’s claim that it is preserving our most sacred voting protections is disingenuous. It has rendered key voting protections that have served this country for than 60 years null and void. Section 2 was rightly named the crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement by earlier compositions of this Court. Today, however, the Roberts Court has allowed discrimination to run rampant as long as state mapmakers cite even the most tenuous justification. This is a setback for our country and our constitution which grants Congress the authority to address the scourge of racial discrimination in voting. We will demand new legislation to protect voters and continue to fight to defend and advance civil rights for all people and to protect our democracy as our institutions continue to fail us. This fight will continue in the courts, in statehouses, in the streets and most importantly at the ballot box until the promise of our multiracial democracy is realized. What the Court did not do and cannot do is take away our fundamental right to vote, and it is incumbent on every American to exercise that right now more than ever in service of our democracy.”
The plaintiffs in Robinson v. Ardoin are a group of Louisiana voters, including individual Black voters and civic organizations, who challenged the state’s congressional map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Louisiana, and the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), along with pro bono counsel. The congressional map at issue in the Callais case was enacted by the Louisiana State Legislature in response to the Robinson litigation. However, during the second oral arguments in the case, the Robinson appellants were the only parties continuing to defend the congressional map with two majority-Black districts after state officials declined to do so.