POLITICS
Voting Rights Case Started in Mobile Comes Full Circle
The April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais returned Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to the standard established in City of Mobile v. Bolden, a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that Congress overrode with the 1982 VRA amendments. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the result makes the Voting Rights Act “all but a dead letter.”
Mobile attorneys Greg Stein, J. U. Blacksher, and Larry Menefee brought the Bolden case. They argued that Mobile’s at-large city commission election system diluted Black voting power regardless of intent. When the Supreme Court disagreed, Congress responded with the 1982 amendments. Blacksher later proposed the legal framework the Court adopted in Thornburg v. Gingles.
Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Callais overhauled the Gingles framework, requiring plaintiffs to control for partisan affiliation when proving racial bloc voting. Critics say this requirement makes Section 2 claims nearly impossible to sustain in states where race and party are inseparable.
Following the ruling, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map, which had previously been struck down by federal courts as an illegal racial gerrymander, for the 2026 elections.
Justice Kagan believes that only Congress can determine that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed. Reading her dissent aloud from the bench, Kagan said, “[The Voting Rights Act] has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed–not the Members of this Court.”
Alabama’s reinstated congressional map will be in effect for the 2026 elections. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund is actively pursuing legal challenges and advocacy at naacpldf.org. The People’s Cooperative will continue covering this story at thepeoplescooperative.org.