The Supreme Court Has Effectively Killed the Voting Rights Act Through Judicial Dismantling
Source: Vann R. Newkirk II. "A Requiem for the Voting Rights Act - The Atlantic." May 2, 2026. www.theatlantic.com
The Gist
The author argues that the Supreme Court has essentially killed the Voting Rights Act by making it nearly impossible to prove racial discrimination in voting laws. This ends America's short period of protecting equal voting rights and allows states to go back to making it harder for Black Americans to vote.
Conclusion
The Voting Rights Act is effectively dead, ending America's brief era of universal suffrage protection and allowing states to resume discriminatory voting practices
Premises
- The Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision requires proof of 'present-day intentional racial discrimination' to consider race in redistricting, setting an impossibly high legal standard
- This ruling follows a pattern of VRA dismantling, including the 2013 Shelby County decision that gutted preclearance requirements
- The Court has created a legal trap where partisan gerrymandering is legal even when it serves as a proxy for racial discrimination
- Southern states have historically used facially race-neutral laws to discriminate, and this ruling enables a return to those practices
- The VRA's protection of universal suffrage lasted less than 60 years out of America's 250-year history, making it historically brief
- Republican-controlled states are already moving to redraw maps to eliminate Black-majority districts following the Callais decision
Assumptions
- Voting in the South remains racially polarized, with white and Black voters supporting opposing candidates
- Past discrimination creates ongoing effects that require race-conscious remedies to address
- The Supreme Court's conservative majority is intentionally dismantling civil rights protections
- Without federal oversight, southern states will return to discriminatory practices
- Proving intentional discrimination in modern voting laws is practically impossible given sophisticated legal language