The Aftermath of Callais

You’re reading State Court Report’s biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to receive it in your inbox.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais represents a tectonic shift in civil rights and election law. The Court rewrote — and eviscerated — key protections of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that goals such as partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection can justify drawing election maps that dampen minority voters’ political power. As has been the case with many recent Supreme Court decisions limiting federal civil rights protections, one of the by-products of Callais will be to embroil state courts in a new wave of legal and political battles.

Until Callais, the Voting Rights Act’s antidiscrimination protections partly served as a constraint on states seeking untrammeled partisan advantage in drawing election maps. No longer. Even though the midterm election cycle is already well underway, several GOP-controlled southern states — including Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee — have responded swiftly to the decision with efforts to draw more extreme gerrymanders. More such efforts are likely after the midterms at both the state and local levels, including responsive efforts to pass gerrymanders favoring Democrats.

Moving forward, any legal constraints on these attempts to draw new maps will come from state law (barring any new action by Congress). These could include state constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering, along with other state requirements such as mandates that districts preserve communities of interest. State law will also govern map-drawing processes, including whether states use independent redistricting commissions, as well as when and how mid-decade redistricting is permitted.

We are unlikely to see many judicial limits in the first wave of post-Callais gerrymanders. In Florida, the state constitution prohibits drawing districts to favor incumbents or political parties, and the Florida Supreme Court has previously enforced that provision to block gerrymandered maps. Citing this case law, plaintiffs are now challenging Florida’s new congressional map. But the state high court’s composition has shifted sharply to the right since its earlier ruling — and the court has repeatedly overruled prior precedents — leaving it unclear what force these limits will have today.

Further, while eight state supreme courts have recognized state constitutional restrictions on partisan gerrymandering, only two of them, Florida’s and Kentucky’s, are in the South. In North Carolina, the state supreme court struck down a Republican gerrymander but then reversed itself after Republicans won a majority of seats on the court, ultimately ruling that partisan gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable.

In the medium and long term, the story is even more complex and uncertain. State supreme court elections in North Carolina in 2026 and 2028 could potentially shift the court’s composition yet again, raising the possibility that it could revisit its precedents. Georgia, a purple state that has largely avoided blockbuster judicial elections, may become a new battleground. (Georgia has a state supreme court election on May 19, an early test.)

States or voters through ballot initiatives may also pursue state constitutional amendments to make gerrymandering easier (or harder). State courts will not only interpret the scope of successful amendments but also assess the legality of measures on the ballot. In Virginia, the state high court is considering whether to block the state’s recent redistricting amendment, which challengers say failed to comport with required legal processes.

It also remains to be seen how state supreme courts across the country, including ones that have previously established limits on partisan gerrymandering, respond to an increasingly gloves-off approach in the aftermath of Callais. Judges are likely to face substantial political pressure to greenlight new maps. In recent years, partisan gerrymandering rulings have repeatedly prompted state legislative responses targeting courts. This year, the Utah Legislature added two seats to the state supreme court after it gave the go-ahead to a map redraw to undo a gerrymander.

A final question is what state law can do to fill the rights gaps left by the Supreme Court in Callais. State constitutions themselves can protect against discrimination, for example, and 10 states have already adopted their own voting rights acts. As a legal matter, Callais didn’t reach the constitutionality of such laws. However, the Court’s analysis rested on a theory of equal protection in which any intentional use of race in drawing election districts is highly suspect.

The use of race-neutral remedies may be on firmer ground, although it’s possible that the Supreme Court could balk at any state policy intended to address racial disparities in elections. It’s also unclear how well such remedies can address the concerns of underrepresentation due to racially polarized voting — a key element of the voting rights act’s antidiscrimination analysis that Callais has undercut. To date, constitutional challenges to state voting rights acts have been unsuccessful. But new challenges are nearly certain in the aftermath of Callais.

Stepping back, ensuring fair representation for all voters is a daunting but urgent task post-Callais. Uniform national rules to protect the right to vote and limit partisan gerrymandering are clearly necessary. But until that happens, battles over fair representation will be fought state by state.

Alicia Bannon is editor in chief for State Court Report. She is also director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Alicia Bannon, The Aftermath of Callais, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 7, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/aftermath-callais