An electoral law which since 1965 has secured political influence for America’s minorities has been hollowed out by the US Supreme Court. Among those reacting strongly is Barack Obama.

The ruling is assumed to strengthen the Republicans’ chances of victory in congressional elections in the years ahead.

The specific case concerns an electoral district in Louisiana where black voters are in the majority. The district’s congressional representative is currently Cleo Fields, a black Democrat.

In a vote on Wednesday, the Supreme Court concluded that the electoral district is unconstitutional because it is to too great an extent based on a racial division. Six justices, all conservative, voted to dilute the law, while three voted against. Chief Justice John Roberts has described the district as a “snake” because it is more than 30 miles long and connects parts of four different cities, Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

– This map is an unconstitutional electoral manipulation, writes Justice Samuel Alito on behalf of the majority.

Greatest significance in 2028

The decision may have consequences for a number of other electoral districts that are divided in a way intended to ensure that candidates with minority backgrounds are also elected to the House of Representatives. This in turn is intended to ensure that the composition of Congress represents all parts of the American population.

Almost 70 of the country’s 435 congressional electoral districts are protected by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, estimates election expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos.

But Wednesday’s decision will probably have greater consequences for the congressional election in 2028 than for this autumn’s midterm election, according to the news agency AP. This is because the deadlines in connection with the midterm election have mostly expired.

In Louisiana, however, the decision may lead to changes already now. About one third of voters in the state are black, and they now form the majority in two of the state’s six electoral districts.

Stopped discrimination

AP writes that it is unclear how much remains of the law, known as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was adopted at a time when the struggle for black rights stood strong in the United States and was intended to put a stop to discriminatory electoral arrangements introduced in the Southern states after the American Civil War.

When the law was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson more than 60 years ago, he called it “a triumph for freedom as enormous as any victory on any battlefield”.

Former President Barack Obama, the United States’ first black President, is among those reacting strongly. In a post on X he writes that the decision hollows out an essential part of the Voting Rights Act.

– State legislatures now have free hands to divide electoral districts in a way that dilutes and weakens minorities’ voting rights in a systematic manner, provided they do so under the pretext that it is about parties and not racial prejudice, Obama writes.

– Fails in its role

He then directs a sharp accusation at the majority of justices on the Supreme Court.

– This is just another example of how a majority of today’s Supreme Court appears determined to abandon its crucial role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority abuses, he writes.

He then urges Americans across the country to ensure record-high voter turnout in the elections ahead.

The White House praises the decision.

– This is entirely a victory for American voters. A person’s skin colour should not determine which congressional district you belong to. We commend the Court for putting a stop to an unconstitutional misuse of the Voting Rights Act and civil-rights protections, spokesperson Abigail Jackson writes in an e-mail to AP.

Trump is pleased

President Donald Trump, who is himself fighting to have the division of electoral districts changed, has stated that this is the kind of decision he likes.

The joy stands in sharp contrast to what the Democrats think.

The chair of the Democrats’ campaign committee, Suzan DelBene, calls the decision “terrible” and a “corrupt and targeted attack on the voting rights of black and brown voters”.

As early as 2019, the Supreme Court issued a decision implying that America’s state legislatures have great freedom to divide electoral districts in a way that serves one party or the other. Now the Court has determined that Section 2 is only to be used in cases where there is intentional discrimination, something that is difficult to prove.

The liberal minority believes that the result in practice will be that the influence of minority voters is systematically weakened without this having any legal consequences.

“Gerrymandering”

The practice of changing electoral districts is known in the United States as “gerrymandering”. The expression arose after Eldbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to 1812, was accused of dividing electoral districts in a way that favoured his own candidacy.

One of the electoral districts was alleged in a joke drawing in the Boston Gazette to have the shape of a salamander; hence “gerrymander”.

Both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in gerrymandering over the years. It is, however, highly unusual for the President to come out publicly and support the practice.

The midterm election is scheduled to be held on 3 November. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives as well as 33 of the 100 seats in the Senate are up for election.

Today the Republicans control both chambers. Should the Democrats regain control of one or both chambers, they will be able to slow Trump’s policy.

We asked Grok what “he” thought of this description:

The article is largely factually correct as regards the basic elements of the judgment, but is to a large extent framed in a partisan and alarmist manner typical of left-wing European coverage of decisions from the US Supreme Court. It presents the conservative 6–3 majority judgment in Louisiana v. Callais (29 April 2026) as an attack on minority rights and democracy itself, while downplaying constitutional concerns linked to racial classification in the drawing of electoral districts.

Factual accuracy

Most of the details are correct:

• The case: Louisiana’s 2024 map (SB8) created a second black-majority congressional district (District 6, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields). The Supreme Court struck it down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Race outweighed traditional districting principles (compactness, contiguity, etc.).
• Vote and opinion: 6–3 along ideological lines. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, calling the map “an unconstitutional gerrymander”. Chief Justice John Roberts had previously described the district as a “snake” stretching about 200 miles (more than 320 km) and connecting scattered black communities in Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.
• Context: Louisiana has a black population of approx. 30–33 per cent. Previously there was one black-majority district; the new map added another. This followed an earlier lawsuit in which a lower court found a potential breach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in the previous map.
• Obama’s reaction and the White House/Trump response: Accurately reported. The Democrats (including Obama and Representative Suzan DelBene) called it a weakening of minorities’ voting rights. The Trump administration/White House praised it as an end to race-based districting (“a person’s skin colour should not determine which district you belong to”).
• Timing: Greater impact is expected after the 2026 midterm election (into the 2028 cycle), since many deadlines had expired.

The article correctly describes the history of Section 2 of the VRA from 1965 (prevention of vote dilution) and both parties’ practice of gerrymandering.

Biases and omissions (critical weaknesses)

The article’s greatest problems lie in framing, selective emphasis and loaded language:

1. “Hollows out electoral law – weakens minorities’ influence”: This is hyperbolic editorial interpretation. The Supreme Court did not abolish Section 2 of the VRA completely. It narrowed its application in order to avoid conflict with the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive race-based districting. The majority (Alito) argued that Section 2 must be interpreted consistently with equal protection – it does not require states to create minority-majority districts when race dominates in an unconstitutional manner. The minority (Kagan et al.) called it a “demolition”, but that is their view.
2. Ignores the central constitutional question: The US Constitution (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments) prohibits racial classifications unless strictly necessary (strict scrutiny). Drawing bizarre, non-compact districts explicitly to maximise black voting power (often to create safe Democratic seats) treats voters primarily as racial blocs. The article barely addresses why the district was a “snake” or precedents such as Shaw v. Reno (1993) against racial gerrymandering. It presents this as protecting “minorities’ influence” instead of discussing whether race-based measures ought to be permanent.
3. Party-political impact presented one-sidedly: Yes, this probably helps Republicans in the short term by making it easier to draw maps without imposed black-majority districts in the Southern states. Black voters overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats (~90%+), so black-majority districts concentrate Democratic votes (packing). But the article omits:
   • Both parties engage in aggressive gerrymandering where they control state legislatures.
   • Earlier court decisions (e.g. Alexander v. South Carolina, 2024) gave states room for manoeuvre when politics (not pure race) explains the districting.
   • Louisiana’s share of the black population does not automatically confer a right to ~33% of the seats through racial manipulation; the VRA protects against dilution, not proportional racial outcomes.
4. Romanticises the VRA and omits trade-offs: The 1965 Act was a triumph against Jim Crow discrimination. But modern applications often involve race as a proxy in polarised voting. The article quotes LBJ and Obama approvingly, but treats conservative scepticism as “weakening” rather than colour-blind consistency. It ignores that aggressive, race-conscious districting may fuel resentment and legal challenges.
5. “Free hands to dilute”: Exaggerated. States still cannot intentionally discriminate. To prove dilution, one must show racially polarised voting + that an alternative map could give minorities a realistic chance of electing preferred candidates without race dominating. The judgment raises the threshold, but does not eliminate the protection.

Broader context

This fits into a pattern of recent SCOTUS decisions limiting race-based measures (Students for Fair Admissions on affirmative action, etc.). Critics on the left see an erosion of civil rights; the majority sees it as enforcement of constitutional limits on the government’s racial sorting. Gerrymandering remains a problem – independent commissions or criteria such as compactness would help more than endless lawsuits over race.

Conclusion: The article reliably reports the events, but contains a clear narrative that race-based gerrymandering to secure “minorities’ influence” is inherently positive, and that any limitation is an attack on democracy by Republicans and conservatives. A more neutral view: the Court prioritised constitutional colour-blindness over maximising safe seats for the preferred party of a particular ethnic group in a particular electoral map. Whether this generally “weakens” minorities depends on whether one believes that long-term ethnic bloc division promotes or hinders integration and fair representation. The facts support the description of the judgment; the doomsday-laden interpretation does not.

What NTB adroitly omits is that the Supreme Court has also struck down racial quotas for universities. They were introduced with the best of intentions after the Civil Rights Act of 1965, but they have had unintended effects. If one departs from the principle of meritocracy, conflicts arise in relation to those who are better qualified. In the United States, this applies especially to Asians. They do best in the tests, actually better than whites. They will not accept being fobbed off with a small quota.

This Norwegian media/politicians will not talk about. They have introduced the same system in Norway that has proved dysfunctional in the United States.

There is much to learn from American history that is relevant to us today because of the experimentation with a new society.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 is one of the most important civil rights laws in the history of the United States. It was adopted to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment (which prohibits racial discrimination in voting rights) and to combat systematic barriers against black voters, especially in the Southern states after the Civil War and during the Jim Crow era. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Act on 6 August 1965.

Historical background

After the Civil War and the Reconstruction period (1865–1877), many Southern states introduced laws such as poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and other mechanisms to prevent blacks (and poor whites) from voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment from 1870. The discrimination continued into the 1960s. The Selma marches in 1965, with violent attacks on demonstrators, created political momentum for the Act. The Act is regarded as the crown jewel of the civil rights movement and led to a dramatic increase in black voters.

Main provisions in the original Act (1965)

• Section 2 (52 U.S.C. § 10301): The most enduring and general provision. Prohibits any state or local authority from using voting qualifications, procedures or practices that result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or colour. It applies nationally. Later extended to language minorities.
• Sections 4 and 5 (Preclearance): Originally the most powerful part. Section 4(b) defined a “coverage formula” based on historical use of discriminatory tests and low voter turnout. Jurisdictions that fell within it (many Southern states) had to obtain prior approval (“preclearance”) from the US Department of Justice or a federal court for all changes in electoral law – from polling places to districting. This prevented discrimination before it occurred.
• Other important elements:
  • Suspension of literacy tests and other “devices”.
  • Possibility of federal examiners/observers.
  • Legal enforcement and civil actions.

Amendments and extensions

The Act has been renewed and strengthened several times:

• 1970, 1975, 1982, 2006: Extended preclearance, extended to language minorities (Spanish, Asian languages, etc.), and in 1982 clarified Section 2 to focus on effect (“results test”) rather than only intention (“intent test”). Congress emphasised that it does not confer a right to proportional representation, only equal opportunities.
• 1975: Permanent ban on literacy tests nationally.

Important Supreme Court decisions

• South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966): Confirmed the Act’s constitutionality.
• Thornburg v. Gingles (1986): Established a three-part test for vote dilution under Section 2 in districting: the minority group must be large enough and compact enough to constitute a majority in a district, politically cohesive, and the majority must vote as a bloc against them.
• Shelby County v. Holder (2013): Struck down the coverage formula in Section 4(b) as outdated. Preclearance thereby died in practice (even though Section 5 formally exists). This led to new electoral laws in several states.
• Brnovich v. DNC (2021): Limited Section 2 in “vote denial” cases (e.g. voting times, ID requirements).
• Allen v. Milligan (2023): Confirmed that Section 2 can still be used to require majority-minority districts under certain conditions.
• Louisiana v. Callais (2026): 6–3 decision that struck down Louisiana’s second black-majority congressional district as an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander”. The Court significantly narrowed Section 2: race cannot dominate districting without strict necessity, and states have more room for “partisan” justifications. This makes it more difficult to require race-conscious districts.

Section 2 today (after 2026)

Section 2 remains in force as a national prohibition on discrimination, but case law has made it narrower. It still requires a “totality of circumstances” assessment, but the courts place greater emphasis on maps not being excessively race-based (contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Critics (especially liberals) believe the Act has been “hollowed out”; supporters see it as a return to colour-blind constitutionalism.

Significance and controversy

The VRA dramatically increased minority participation in politics. It has, however, become a battleground: the left sees it as essential protection against suppression; the right warns against race-based politics contrary to the Constitution’s principle of equality. Gerrymandering (manipulation of districts) occurs from both parties, but the VRA has been a tool for creating “majority-minority districts” that often favour Democrats.

The Act remains relevant for lawsuits concerning voter turnout, ID requirements, early voting and district maps, but its power has been reduced compared with the 1965–2013 period. For more technical details, see the official text in the U.S. Code or the Justice Department.