Supreme Court dons new robes, hoods to eviscerate Voting Rights Act of 1965

A criticism often levied against liberal members of the Supreme Court by conservatives is that they act as activist justices. Such a practice, the deviation of precedent to further a certain policy goal,  goes against the ideas outlined in Article III of the Constitution, which says that the Supreme Court is supposed to follow Stare Decisis, or allow previous verdicts to stand. Recently however, the current conservative Supreme Court has abandoned one of the most critical pieces of precedence in United States history. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark piece of legislation that outlawed gerrymandering by race, making racial discrimination in voting districts illegal. The recent Louisiana v. Callais decision at the Supreme Court has indisputably changed this direction for national voting laws. This unprecedented decision ushers back in the ability to racially gerrymander, leaving lawsuits based on racially discriminatory districting virtually impossible. The alteration of precedent by the Supreme Court will fundamentally change the way, liberal, conservative, and contested districts are mapped.

Gerrymandering is a technique often utilized by bad actors to draw voting districts for partisan advantage. Historically, the strategy was created to lessen the impact of African American voters by strangling their voice through packing and cracking districts. This was the practice of either drawing districts to encompass as many black households as possible to lessen the number of electoral votes; packing, or splitting those neighborhoods into multiple districts with a greater number of white people that would overshadow these voters; cracking. Needless to say, this was specifically coordinated by racist politicians to avoid being voted out by the large numbers of non-white voters in the South. During the 1960s, there was major public pressure from black communities to address this major issue with the democratic process, which eventually led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which stated that this sort of districting was objectively unfair. Therefore, lawsuits were filed and won against the committees that designed these districts, allowing for the maps to more accurately reflect the demographics of the people living within them. While this is an imperfect solution, it is currently the most effective way for making up for the lack of drastic change in the American electoral system. Therefore, its institution is one of the few safeguards preventing the discrimination of the numerous racial minorities that make up the diverse United States. Now, history has collided with the court’s activist decision of 2026.

The current Supreme Court is no stranger to precedent breaking decisions. Sitting Chief Justice John Roberts has stated that the justices are not “political actors,” but this decision tells a different story. Louisiana v. Callais overturns a key turning point in United States history that has had extreme relevance to the electoral process today, making its removal quite unprecedented. Within context, to suggest that no political influence of the time was involved in this decision seems slim to laughable. The hotly contested former presidential election and midterms threatening Republicans losing majorities in the Houses of Congress have led to several Republican efforts to restrict voting. President Trump even commented in an interview that the United States “shouldn’t even have” midterms in November due to the success of his administration. The timing of this decision coinciding with these efforts seems incredibly convenient for a person looking to consolidate power within the government while under threat of losing it to elections like President Trump. Juxtaposing the comments of John Roberts against those of President Trump, one would see them in opposite minds, yet their actions align in interest. Whether Chief Justice John Roberts truly believes this court case has nothing to do with the political state of the world, the reality still remains that it will affect it. President Trump, who has less favorability with minority groups due to a history of discrimination in businesses associated with him, ICE raids, and a multitude of other factors, will inevitably gain from this alteration if acted upon. Allowing district lines do not factor in demographics, if acted upon maliciously, will once again cause voting discrimination to be a rampant issue within the country.

This decision coming so close to midterms makes efforts to combat voter discrimination that much more difficult. When discrimination is codified, there is very little that can be done at a local level to combat it. The president has also suggested placing armed guards at polling places to deter voter fraud. Since research from several organizations has proven that voter fraud is a microscopic factor in the outcome of elections, if this decision is taken, it will only intimidate people wishing to exercise their right. As outlined in the Constitution, Americans are supposed to have certain inalienable rights, such as the right to vote. Though the Supreme Court’s decision was made under the guise of equality, it makes the assumption that racism and discrimination are a thing of the past. However, systemic racism still exists throughout many institutions in America, especially the government. The idea that justice is blind is one that seems honorable in concept, but blind justice lacks the nuance it takes to understand race relations in America. This decision, made as an act of blind justice, will only lead to worse results for voters who are not privileged enough to be white. Restricting public freedoms is a common through line in authoritarian regimes in today's world, and that of history. In all these cases, the endpoint is the same, and with analysts and critics already suggesting the fascistic nature of some of Trump’s campaign strategies, it sets a dark tone for America’s future. If these perpetual attacks do not stop, and the Supreme Court continues to pass unprecedented decisions, the claims some call hyperbolic of a fascist American government will become undeniable. 

by William Amel

Published May 26, 2026

Oshkosh West Index Volume 122 Issue VIII