*Aharon Katz
- Introduction: The Modern Expansion of Partisan Redistricting Efforts
Partisan redistricting has been part of the national political playbook since the United States’ founding.[1] The first congressional maps drawn in 1789 show signs of manipulation in favor of specific political interests.[2] The term “gerrymander” gained notoriety after an 1812 political cartoon mocked Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry’s partisan boundary manipulation by depicting one of the bizarrely shaped districts as resembling a salamander.[3] The 1990s ushered in a new era of redistricting, as technological advances enabled precise algorithmic maps tailored to benefit particular political parties.[4] Supreme Court rulings in 2004 and 2019, holding that questions of political gerrymandering were non-justiciable due to a lack of judicially manageable standards, weakened judicial safeguards and emboldened redistricting movements.[5] Although states traditionally waited for the new census at the end of every decade to redistrict, recent mid-cycle redistricting efforts by both parties have once again elevated the gerrymandering issue to the national spotlight.[6]
- The Backdrop for the Callais Decision
Historically, redistricting efforts have also included a racial dimension.[7] In the post-Civil War era, Southern states frequently employed racialized redistricting efforts to dilute the influence of the Black vote.[8] The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 provided protections against racial discrimination in redistricting.[9] In its original form, Section 2 of the VRA stated that “[n]o . . . standard practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”[10] The Supreme Court in Mobile v. Bolden decided that neutral voting practices only violate Section 2 if they are “motivated by a discriminatory purpose.”[11] Backlash to this decision prompted Congress to amend Section 2.[12]
Under the newly added Section 2(b), a violation of the VRA is established when the totality of the circumstances indicate that members of a protected class “have less [of an] opportunity than other members of the electorate to . . . elect representatives of their choice.”[13] Soon after, in Thornburg v. Gingles, the Supreme Court held that, regardless of racial intent, a Section 2(b) violation occurs when a government entity fails to create a reasonably constructed district that would ensure minority representation (when the minority otherwise will not be represented).[14] However, the amended Section 2 generated tension with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees equal protection under the law for any person, minority or not, under any state’s jurisdiction.[15] This tension led to the controversy raised in Louisiana v. Callais.
- Callais and the Racial Intent Requirement
Louisiana’s population is around one-third African-American and has six congressional districts.[16] In 2020, the Louisiana legislature drew a congressional map that had only one majority Black district.[17] Upon request for an injunction, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana held that this map likely violated the VRA and ordered that a new map be drawn with a second majority Black district.[18] After Louisiana modified the congressional map, a group of plaintiffs, led by Phillip Callais, sued the State.[19] The plaintiffs claimed that the second majority African-American district was a racial gerrymander that showed preferential treatment for a specific class in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.[20] The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the State appealed directly to the Supreme Court.[21]
The Supreme Court’s decision established a new standard for illegal gerrymandering.[22] Writing for the Court, Justice Alito explained that any law discriminating on the basis of race triggers strict scrutiny.[23] However, instead of deciding the constitutionality of Section 2 as construed by Gingles, the Court reinterpreted Section 2’s meaning.[24] Under Callais, a class “hav[ing] less [of an] opportunity than other members of the electorate to . . . elect representatives of their choice” merely means that they have less of a chance of electing representatives of their choice than do other non-minority citizens of the same political affiliation.[25] The caveat is that even a Democratic-aligned non-minority community does not stand a particularly high chance of electing a Democratic candidate in a heavily Republican state and vice versa.[26] Rather, to establish a Section 2 violation under the Callais approach, a plaintiff would have to show racially motivated redistricting rather than standard partisan politics.[27]
Justice Kagan read a summary of her dissent from the bench, signaling her strong disagreement.[28] She argued that because the Subsection (b) amendment was added in response to public outcry over the Bolden decision,[29] reverting to the Bolden neutral intent standard undermines Congress’s original intent.[30] In rejecting Justice Alito’s claim that improvements in racial politics over the fifty years since the VRA’s passage made Gingles’s broad protections unnecessary, she argued that any racial advances were because of the VRA.[31] She argued that this decision essentially turns Section 2 of the VRA into a “dead letter.”[32]
- The Fallout
Who loses? Well, everyone.[33] Partisan redistricting only breeds more partisan redistricting.[34] To illustrate: After the Trump Administration began its mid-cycle redistricting push, California Democrats countered by redrawing an additional five seats in their favor.[35] The Maryland Legislature went even further by approving a ballot measure that, if passed, would amend the state Constitution and make it easier to eliminate the final Maryland Republican House seat.[36] This decision will likely only fuel a new wave of hyperpartisanship and divisiveness.[37] More importantly, states can now use this decision to freely discriminate against minorities and blame partisan politics as a pretext.[38] Even if states do act in good faith and redistrict only for political rather than racial reasons, minorities may still have the impression that they are being disenfranchised.[39] Thus, it appears that this new gerrymandering frontier is likely to make politics uglier and more polarizing.[40]
*Aharon Katz is a second-year evening student at the University of Baltimore School of Law and serves as a staff editor for Volume 56 of the University of Baltimore Law Review. During the day, he participates in a scholarly postgraduate program that studies Jewish law. Aharon spent the summer of 2026 as a Summer Associate for Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin, and Gibber, P.A. In his free time, Aharon enjoys playing tennis, reading, and spending time with his wife and three children. Aharon was previously published in the University of Baltimore Law Review for authoring the Highest Case Note in the 2026 Write-On Competition.
[1] Jerald Stubbs, The Long History of Gerrymandering in American Politics, Real Clear Hist. (June 5, 2026), https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2026/06/05/the_long_history_of_gerrymandering_in_american_politics_1186588.html.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Benjamin Forest, The Changing Demographic, Legal, and Technological Contexts of Political Representation, PubMed Central (Oct. 17, 2005), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1266125/.
[5] Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 281 (2004); Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684, 718 (2019).
[6] Explainer: What’s Happening with Gerrymandering in the United States—and Who Will “Win” the Redistricting Battle?, Harvard Kennedy School (May 4, 2026), https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/democracy-governance/explainer-whats-happening-gerrymandering-united.
[7] Maahi Sethi, The Battle of Redistricting in the American South, ACLU Ga. (July 22, 2026), https://www.acluga.org/news/the-battle-of-redistricting-in-the-american-south/.
[8] Little, supra note 4.
[9] Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301.
[10] Id.
[11] 446 U.S. 55, 62 (1980).
[12] Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. 85, 96 (2026).
[13] 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).
[14] See 478 U.S. 30, 48–51 (1986).
[15] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Callais, 608 U.S. at 107.
[16] Callais, at 148 (Kagan, J., dissenting).
[17] Id.
[18] Id. at 103 (majority opinion); see Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759, 766, 858 (2022).
[19] See Callais, at 106.
[20] See id.
[21] Id. at 106–07; see 28 U.S.C. § 1253.
[22] Callais at 118–21.
[23] Id. at 107.
[24] See id. at 110–11.
[25] Id. at 110; Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).
[26] Callais, at 110 (drawing an analogy between the opportunity of minority voters to elect members of their preferred party in a state dominated by the opposing party to the opportunity of a man shorter than six feet tall to play in the NBA).
[27] Id. at 113 (“[T]he focus of § 2 must be enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination.”).
[28] Amy Howe, In Major Voting Rights Act Case, Supreme Court Strikes Down Redistricting Map Challenged as Racially Discriminatory, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 29, 2026), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/in-major-voting-rights-act-case-supreme-court-strikes-down-redistricting-map-challenged-as-racia/. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined Justice Kagan in dissenting. Callais at 127.
[29] See discussion supra Section II.
[30] Callais, at 172 (Kagan, J., dissenting).
[31] Id. at 168 (quoting Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 590 (2013) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“[such logic is akin to] throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”).
[32] Id. at 172.
[33] See Explainer: What’s Happening with Gerrymandering in the United States—and Who Will “Win” the Redistricting Battle?, supra note 6.
[34] See id.
[35] See Explainer: What’s Happening with Gerrymandering in the United States—and Who Will “Win” the Redistricting Battle?, supra note 6 and accompanying text; DOJ and California go to Court Over New Congressional Map Designed to Favor Democrats, PBS News (Dec. 15, 2025, at 14:29 ET), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/doj-and-california-go-to-court-over-new-congressional-map-designed-to-favor-democrats.
[36] See David Collins, Maryland Question 3 Sparks Confusion as Voters Say Ballot Language is ‘Very Verbose’, WBAL-TV (Oct. 12, 2026, at 11:53 ET), https://www.wbaltv.com/article/maryland-question-3-ballot-language-confusion-tv-ads/74109301.
[37] See Alicia Bannon, The Aftermath of Callais, State Ct. Rep. (May 7, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/aftermath-callais.
[38] Callais, 608 U.S. at 172.
[39] See generally id. (moving from the intent-neutral Gingles standard to a new specific-intent standard).
[40] See Bannon, supra note 37.
