Louisiana v. Callais: Can states legally redraw congressional maps this close to an election?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana is already reshaping the fight over congressional redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reject Louisiana’s most recently drawn congressional map due to what it called an illegal racial gerrymander could throw a wrench in the 2026 primaries, with several states now weighing whether to redraw districts or delay elections.
The high court’s 6-3 ruling on April 29 effectively barred states from using race as a factor in drawing congressional maps, upholding a federal court decision that struck down Louisiana’s 2024 map that contained a second majority-Black district. The state redrew its congressional map then to address concerns that its previous map had diluted its Black population’s voting power in violation of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark piece of legislation that was signed into law in 1965 by former President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Now, several states are attempting to scrap maps they previously drew to give their party a last-minute advantage ahead of voting. Typically redrawn every 10 years, congressional maps have become flashpoints in an escalating legal and political battle in blue and red states following the ruling, which has significant implications for the November election.
What does the Louisiana decision say?
The Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting rules or practices that discriminate on the basis “of race or color,” did not require the state to create an additional “majority-minority” district, which is defined as a district in which racial or ethnic minorities make up at least half of the voting-age population.
Northeastern Global News, in your inbox.
Sign up for NGN’s daily newsletter for news, discovery and analysis from around the world.
In 2022, a federal judge found that the congressional map Louisiana had drawn that year violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The decision prompted lawmakers to redraw its map in 2024 to include another race-conscious district. About one-third of Louisiana’s population is Black, according to U.S. Census data, but only one of the state’s seven congressional districts was majority Black.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito argued that requiring Louisiana to draw another majority-Black district — as the judge had in Robinson v. Landry — meant that the state had to sort voters predominantly by race in a way that conflicted with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment.
“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 … was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it,” Alito wrote. “Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s [Section 2] precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”
How are states responding to the decision?
“I think it’s going to be a mess, with lots of Republican leaning states trying to redraw their districts immediately,” said Dan Urman, director of the law and public policy minor at Northeastern University, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new congressional map that would split Memphis and Shelby County into three districts, a move that could help Republicans flip Tennessee’s only remaining Democratic congressional seat. Alabama also introduced a new map during a special session this week before adjourning on Wednesday due to protests.
In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a new congressional map expected to favor Republicans in several additional House districts, which prompted a swift legal challenge from opponents. Similar redistricting discussions are underway in states such Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, as Republicans seek to capitalize on the court’s ruling.
Can states legally redraw their maps this close to an election?
In prior years, the Supreme Court has held that if voting is a few months away, a state must use the existing map and save redrawn maps for future elections, Urman said.
That rule is known as the Purcell principle, a doctrine established in a case called Purcell v. Gonzalez that cautions courts against changing election rules too close to an election. Decided in 2006, the Supreme Court said then that courts should avoid altering election procedures close to an election because doing so can confuse voters and disrupt the administration of elections.
“Based on Supreme Court precedent, it should be too late this cycle. But you never know,” Urman said, adding that “precedent … is only as strong as the justices willing to enforce it.”
How will the decision affect primary voting?
In Louisiana, Gov. Jeff Landry suspended his state’s primary election scheduled for next month to allow state lawmakers to redraw the map. That is despite the fact that Louisiana voters had already cast absentee ballots.
The move could test the long-standing guidance cautioning against changing election procedures too close to voting deadlines.
The decision could also trigger disputes over ballot access, candidate qualification deadlines and whether absentee ballots remain valid if district lines are redrawn before the election, Urman said.
“We will see how lower courts respond to the Louisiana governor’s executive order to delay the election, even though voters in the state have already cast ballots for the May primary,” Urman said. “This case and others like it will probably end up on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, or shadow docket, where the court has to weigh in before the lawsuit is complete.”
