The Supreme Court's gerrymaxxing

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Calais has effectively gutted a key component of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to redraw congressional maps without regard to race-based representation. In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative majority struck down a Louisiana map that created a majority-Black district, arguing that race should not be a factor in redistricting. However, critics—including Vox's Ian Millhiser and ACLU attorney Sophia Lynn Lakin—argue this is a dangerous precedent that enables partisan and racial gerrymandering. Louisiana has already suspended its upcoming House elections to redraw the map in a way that benefits Republicans, with other red states like Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi expected to follow. Blue states such as New York, Colorado, and Maryland may respond with retaliatory gerrymanders, but none have formally begun the process yet. The episode traces the evolution of gerrymandering jurisprudence, from the 1986 Davis v. Bandemir case to the 2019 Rucho decision, which declared federal courts powerless to intervene in partisan gerrymandering. This shift has triggered a 'race to the bottom' in redistricting, where every state legislature flip leads to new map manipulation. The ACLU is preparing legal challenges, while advocates call for renewed civil rights activism and congressional action to restore voting protections. The episode ends on a note of cautious hope, acknowledging resistance from some lawmakers but warning that democracy is under serious threat. Key takeaways include: 1) The Supreme Court’s decision enables states to redraw maps without protecting minority representation; 2) Gerrymandering is now a two-way street, with both red and blue states engaging in strategic map manipulation; 3) The federal judiciary can no longer stop partisan gerrymandering, leaving enforcement to state courts and legislatures; 4) The Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 has been effectively eviscerated, undermining decades of civil rights progress; 5) Public outrage and political will may yet drive a new wave of voting rights legislation; 6) State-level reforms and constitutional amendments are critical tools in the fight against gerrymandering; 7) The current system incentivizes perpetual redistricting cycles, eroding democratic accountability; 8) Civil rights organizations are preparing for a new era of litigation and advocacy.