Current Events: Voting Rights Act - Civics Learning Project

On Wednesday, October 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court heard, for the second time, arguments in the case Louisiana v. Callais. During this most recent term, the arguments were heard in order for the court to determine to what extent the Constitution allows the use of race in drawing congressional district lines. At the heart of the case is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how the Supreme Court rules on this case could determine how race should be applied in the redistricting of voting districts in the future and could have a substantial effect on the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, and all subsequent American elections.

The Voting Rights Act was one of the landmark accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement and led to a monumental change in black Americans access to voting and representation after a century of Jim Crow laws. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law, giving the federal government oversight over elections in order to enforce voting rights in areas with a history of disenfranchisement. Primarily southern states had been using barriers like literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses to keep black citizens from voting since the end of the Reconstruction Era. The Voting Rights Act effectively eliminated those discriminatory mechanisms in the decades that followed. Court cases in the more recent past have reduced the federal oversight over states’ elections because, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “those measures were no longer necessary in today’s South.” Further, the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder established that The Voting Rights Act protections are only triggered if a lawsuit is filed after disenfranchisement has already occurred.

Drawing district maps specifically to limit the power of one group and increase the power of another is a common problem and is known as gerrymandering. Accusations of gerrymandering occur whenever redistricting seems unbalanced. This is what happened recently in Louisiana and the state’s remedy is now under scrutiny in this court case. The Supreme Court justices now have to weigh the benefits of race-conscious districting when Black voters were being effectively disenfranchised against the ‘colorblind’ provisions of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

“At issue is how to strike a balance between race-conscious districting and traditional districting principles like compactness, political considerations, and incumbency protection… This case is poised to influence the future balance of power in American politics, setting the stage for how race is handled in redistricting across the nation,” writes Joshua Villanueva, law student at George Washington University.

This week’s current event addresses potential legal threats to The Voting Rights Act as well as the contentious issue of redistricting, which is dominating headlines across the country.

Essential Questions:

How should we judge fairness – by process? by outcome? both?
Which should society strive for – equality or equity?
What conditions led to the passing of the Voting Rights Act?
How can electoral maps affect the power of certain groups?
What do you think is the most fair way to draw electoral maps?

Vocabulary:

Jim Crow Laws – Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States that enforced racial segregation and discrimination against black Americans.
Disenfranchisement – The systematic denial of the right to vote or participate in the political process, often targeting specific groups based on race, socioeconomic status, or other factors.
Poll tax – A fee required for voting.
Literacy test – Assessments used to determine a person’s reading and writing skills, primarily used in the United States as a means to restrict voting.
Grandfather clause – A rule that allowed individuals to bypass literacy tests or other voting restrictions if their grandfathers had been eligible to vote before the Civil War.
Gerrymandering – The manipulation of electoral maps for political advantage.