The conventional liberal take on the decision in Louisiana v. Callais to limit the use of race in drawing congressional districts is that it is a defeat for minority political influence. As the New York Times editorial page writes: “The reality is that in the name of disentangling race from politics, the Supreme Court has given white voters more power at the expense of racial minorities.”
Its true that by not creating as many populationâoften by connecting geographically distant parts of communitiesâthere may be fewer seats almost guaranteed to be won by African Americans. As I wrote on this site when the court heard arguments in the case last fall: “Only by going out of their way to find majority Black neighborhoods to cobble together in one district can Louisiana achieve progressives stated goal: two districts likely to elect a second Black member of Congress, in a state whose population is one-third Black.”
But the fact that it will no longer be permitted doesnt mean that Black voters will necessarily have less influence. They could even have more.
The key to understanding why is the tried-and-true power of the swing voter. In the current Louisiana map from 2020 (now being adjusted), one district (the 2nd) has a Black population of nearly 50 percent, making it likely a Black candidate would have an advantage (if race is the paramount factor for Black voters). But the nearby 3rd District has a Black population of 21 percent, a mixed-race population of 3 percent and a 6 percent Hispanic population.
An enterprising couldâeven in an election without a Black candidateâseek to appeal to minority voters as a path to victory. Think here of a centrist Democrat who could combine minority swing voters with a bloc of centrist White voters to defeat a Republican. The redrawn districts, even without a Black majority, could well have even larger Black percentages than current White-represented seats.
It could also be possibleâand healthyâfor a Black candidate to appeal to a group of White voters, based on political philosophy, to win a seat. After all, there are five Black members of the U.S. despite the fact that there are no majority Black states. One of themâSouth Carolinas Tim Scottârepresents a state that was a founding member of the Confederacy.
Black voters playing a swing role may enjoy more competitive as well. This is not the case in a significant number of seats held by current members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Racial gerrymandering has typically made their seats safe for likely re-election; in 2024, four of 57 members faced no opponent at all, a notable percentage of the total 25 such members of Congress. Safe seats can be a path to seniority and influenceâas with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. But they can also lead to the re-election of backbench gadflies such as Reps. Jasmine Crockett and Al Green of Texas.
Nor does nominal competition balance the power of longtime incumbency; Californias won 75% of the November vote in 2024 against a Republican challenger in an overwhelmingly Democratic district. District lines drawn to ensure African American representativesâthe focus of the courts rulingâdo, indeed, matter.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in the 2025 oral arguments in the Louisiana districting case, raised the question of whether there should be a “time limit” on the consideration of race in drawing congressional maps. This is implicitly an argument that, more than 50 years after the passage of the , we should hopeâand not assume â that race is not always the deciding factor in how both White and African American citizens cast their ballots.
The alternative to , is those that are “geographically compact”âin which the shared concerns of neighbors about their communities are at issue. Those could include race-related problems but will also involve the quality of schools, roads and parksâmatters that unite rather than divide.
Its de-emphasis
