Supreme Court Could Silence Black Voters in Louisiana

The Supreme Court is hearing a case that could change how Black people are represented in Louisiana for generations. At issue is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the part of the law that stops states from drawing voting maps that weaken Black political power.

For sixty years, Section 2 has been simple:
if most white voters always vote for white candidates,
and most Black voters support Black candidates,
then Black voters deserve at least a few districts where they can elect someone who looks like them and fights for their issues.

Now the Court’s conservative justices—especially Justice Brett Kavanaugh—are asking whether that rule should still exist.

What Louisiana wants

Louisiana lawmakers created a second majority-Black congressional district earlier this year after federal courts said the old map violated the Voting Rights Act.

But now, Louisiana’s own lawyers are telling the Supreme Court that the new map is “unfair to white voters.”
They argue that using race to draw fair districts is discrimination in reverse.
If the Court agrees, Louisiana’s conservative legislature will be free to erase the second Black district—and maybe even Troy Carter’s district in New Orleans.

Let’s be clear: that argument ignores history and facts.

The history and the math

Louisiana has never elected a Black person to statewide office.
That’s not an accident. It’s proof that, statewide, white voters do not support Black candidates in large numbers.

Just look at New Orleans’s recent mayor’s race:

• Around 80% of white voters backed Helena Moreno, who ran as the change candidate.
• Black voters split their support among three candidates.
  That split vote pattern happens across the state—one reason why Black candidates rarely win without majority-Black districts.

Black Louisianans make up one-third of the population, but we only have one of six congressional seats.
That’s why courts ordered a second Black-majority district—to make representation fair.

What the Court is questioning

The conservative majority is asking whether using race to fix racial discrimination is constitutional at all.
Justice Kavanaugh asked if Section 2 was supposed to be “temporary.”
That question shows how far the Court has shifted.

Justice Sotomayor reminded everyone that Louisiana’s old map had already been ruled discriminatory—and those rulings were upheld by this same Court just a year ago.

So why reopen the case now? Because a few justices want to re-interpret Section 2 so narrowly that it becomes useless.

What this means for Louisiana

If the Court sides with Louisiana’s new argument,
the legislature could redraw the map however it wants.
They could scatter Black neighborhoods across white districts,
ensuring no district has a Black majority—and no Black representative ever wins again.

That would return Louisiana to the 1960s—representation by geography, not justice.

Related: How “Reverse Discrimination” Threatens Black Voting Power

The bigger picture

This isn’t just about lines on a map.
It’s about whether Black people get to choose leaders who speak for us.
Without strong legal protections, voting power becomes a math game run by the majority.

If you erase those protections, Louisiana’s legislature will have total control over whose votes count most.
And history tells us exactly what they’ll do with that power.

What happens next

The Supreme Court will likely rule by the end of the year.
If they weaken Section 2, you’ll hear legal phrases like “color-blind Constitution” or “race neutrality.”
Don’t be fooled.
Those words mean less Black representation and less accountability in Baton Rouge and Washington.

Louisiana’s map—and our voice—are on the line.