لويزيانا ضد كاليس

(تم التحويل من Louisiana v. Callais)
لويزيانا ضد كاليس
Robinson v. Callais
المحكمة العليا للولايات المتحدة
Argued 24 مارس, 2025
Reargued 15 أكتوبر, 2025
حـُكِم فيها في 29 أبريل, 2026
الاسم الكامل للقضيةLouisiana, Appellant v. Phillip Callais, et al.
Press Robinson, et al., Appellants v. Phillip Callais, et al.
رقم الحافظة24-109
24-110
استشهاد برأي608 الولايات المتحدة ___ (للمزيد)
Holding
Compliance with the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to use race as the basis for redistricting. No compelling State interest justified the use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Court membership
آراء القضية
الأغلبيةAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
الاتفاقThomas، انضم إليه Gorsuch
المعارضةKagan, joined by Sotomayor, Jackson
القوانين المطبقة
Voting Rights Act of 1965
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, XV

Louisiana v. Callais, consolidated with Robinson v. Callais, 608 الولايات المتحدة [1] (2026), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning racial gerrymandering and redistricting in the state of Louisiana following the 2020 United States census. After the Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. Milligan, the Louisiana legislature produced a new map under court orders, allocating two of the state's six districts as majority-minority districts reflecting the state's 2020 census demographics and in alignment with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The new maps were challenged as a race-driven constitutional violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled along ideological lines, upholding the federal district panel's judgement that the new redistricting map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fifteenth Amendment.

While the Court declined to find Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, it established additional requirements for vote dilution claims to succeed, beyond the ones set out in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that plaintiffs in Section 2 challenges must demonstrate that a state intentionally redistricted to diminish the opportunity for minority voters. Absent such proof, the Court indicated that such challenges would be deemed nonjusticiable as a partisan gerrymander under the precedent of Rucho v. Common Cause (2019).

خلفية

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act in 1965
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act in 1965

Following the 2020 United States census, Louisiana was assigned six seats in the United States House of Representatives. The census found that about one-third of the people in the state were Black. The Louisiana State Legislature, where the Republican Party held a majority in both chambers, approved new district maps that were largely unchanged from the previous decade, giving the state five districts with White majorities and one with a Black majority.[1]

Black voters challenged the new maps in court, alleging it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits racial discrimination in elections. In the ensuing case, Robinson v. Ardoin, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick ruled in June 2022 that the map violated the VRA and ordered the legislature to draw a new map including a second majority-Black district to reflect the census results.[2] Louisiana's Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin sought a stay of the order from the Fifth Circuit, which was denied. Ardoin then sought relief from the Supreme Court, which stayed the order pending its decision in Allen v. Milligan, a similar VRA case from Alabama.[3]

In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Allen v. Milligan that Alabama's new district map violated the VRA.[4] Consequently, the Court lifted its stay of Dick's ruling, returning the case to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit told the legislature to pass a map with two majority-Black districts by January 15, 2024, or else Judge Dick could draw and impose a new map.[5] The state legislature held a special session in January 2024 and approved a new map, in which its 6th congressional district became the state's second majority-Black district.[6]

After the new maps were issued, a group of plaintiffs calling themselves "non-African-American voters" filed suit, led by Phillip "Bert" Callais who lived near Baton Rouge, one of the areas impacted by the new maps.[7] The suit claimed the 6th district was racially gerrymandered and violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.[6] Because this was a constitutional rather than a statutory challenge, the case was heard by a panel of three federal district judges from the Western District of Louisiana, rather than a single judge. In May 2024, the panel ruled 2–1 that the new map was unconstitutionally gerrymandered and blocked its use. The state sought a stay from the Supreme Court, arguing it was too close to the election to create a new map. The Supreme Court ordered the state to use, due to the timing constraints, the January 2024 map for the 2024 elections, without ruling on the merits of the panel's decision in substantia.[8]

المحكمة العليا

Two separate petitions were filed with the Supreme Court to hear the challenge on the district panel's ruling; one from the state itself (Louisiana v. Callais) and another from Black voters and civil rights organizations such as the NAACP (Robinson v. Callais). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to both cases and consolidated them in November 2024.[9]

The first oral argument was held on March 24, 2025.[10] On June 27, 2025, instead of issuing a ruling, the Court ordered reargument for the 2025 term, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.[11]

During the summer recess before its 2025 term, the Supreme Court directed all parties to submit supplemental briefs on a new question for the justices to decide: whether the new maps violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Law professors specializing in election law and other observers said this move suggested the Court was weighing whether compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would be unconstitutional, further weakening the VRA;[12][13][14] and that the new question presented, together with the decision for reargument, was a sign that the Court was preparing to make major changes in its VRA jurisprudence (as it had done in Citizens United v. FEC).[15] In its supplemental brief, Louisiana said it would no longer defend its position in the case at the Supreme Court, and instead argued that the new maps violated the 14th and 15th Amendments.[16]

The second oral session for the case took place on October 15, 2025. Court observers speculated that the court's conservative majority appeared ready to limit the use of the VRA for redistricting by suggesting that the Act's mandates might have a time limit, an argument similar to the one used to end affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. While observers did not expect the Court to strike down Section 2 entirely, they suggested the conservative justices would increase the evidentiary burden for proving racial discrimination in redistricting.[17][18]

الحكم

The court issued its decision on April 29, 2026. In a 6–3 decision, split along ideological lines,[19][20][21] the court affirmed the three-judge district court's ruling that the state's new map was an illegal racial gerrymander. The majority opinion was written by Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.[22] Alito wrote: "Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context. Compliance with section 2 [of the VRA] thus could not justify the state's use of race-based redistricting here. The state's attempt to satisfy the Middle District's ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."[23]

The decision did not hold Section 2 of the VRA to be unconstitutional, nor did it overturn cases such as Allen v. Milligan (2023), though Alito wrote that "major developments" since one of the last major tests of Section 2, Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), required "additional considerations." Gingles provided for three pre-conditions: that the minority voters were "sufficiently numerous and compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district"; that they voted in a "politically cohesive" manner; and that the majority voted in a bloc as to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. If all three preconditions were met, the court then should evaluate whether the political process was not equally open to minority voters.[24] Alito said of the first Gingles precondition, computer-aided redistricting tools have advanced enough for plaintiffs challenging maps to demonstrate a map that "fully achieves all the State’s legitimate goals" including incumbency protection by "a specific margin of victory" while creating the majority-minority district.[24][25][26] For the second and third Gingles preconditions, Alito said that under the combination of the US having a two-party system coupled with the ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering was non-justiciable within federal courts, that "a litigant can easily exploit [Section 2] for partisan purposes by 'repackag[ing] a partisan-gerrymandering claim as a racial-gerrymandering claim.'"[24] Finally, Alito said, in regards to the final part of the Gingles test, that "things have changed dramatically" in the southern states since the VRA was passed, and "Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate." As such, the addition of the second majority-Black district in the challenged Louisiana maps was racially motivated and not required.[24][19] He concluded that a successful challenger must now prove that a state "intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race." Failing to "disentangle race from the state's race-neutral considerations, including politics," will now likely lead to an unsuccessful suit.[20]

The 2025 congressional district map of Louisiana upheld by lower courts before the decision (left) and a proportional representation map under the Fair Representation Act (right)

In a concurring opinion joined only by Gorsuch, Justice Thomas contended that Section 2 of the VRA should not apply to districting at all, writing that the court "should never have interpreted" it "to effectively give racial groups 'an entitlement to roughly proportional representation'."[24]

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, in which Sotomayor and Jackson joined, stating: "The consequences [of the Court's decision] are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today's decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter."[22] She said that the Voting Rights Act "is —or, now more accurately, was— 'one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation's history.' It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality." Kagan accused the majority of reviving the intent-based standard from Mobile v. Bolden that Congress had repudiated in its 1982 amendments to the VRA, which, she said, would make vote dilution cases nearly unwinnable. She stressed that Congress was the only authority to determine whether the VRA is no longer needed.[24]

تحليل

توقع المحللون أن الحكم في قضية كاليس بتقليص نطاق قانون حقوق التصويت قد يُمكّن الجمهوريين من كسب عدد كبير من المقاعد في مجلس النواب الأمريكي من خلال إعادة تقسيم الدوائر الانتخابية في الجنوب الشرقي، حيث منع القانون عموماً المجالس التشريعية التي يسيطر عليها الجمهوريون من زيادة عدد دوائرهم "المضمونة". وقدّرت نيويورك تايمز أنه في حال أضعفت المحكمة القانون، فقد ينتقل ما يصل إلى اثني عشر مقعداً من سيطرة الديمقراطيين إلى سيطرة الجمهوريين..[27][28]

عندما أُعلن عن الحكم في القضية، وصفته وسائل الإعلام بأنه قرار "تاريخي"، وتوقعت أن القيود الإضافية على القسم 2 من قانون VRA من المرجح أن تجعل تحديات إعادة تقسيم الدوائر أكثر صعوبة بشكل ملحوظ. يتوقع المحللون أن يسمح للولايات الجنوبية بإلغاء مقاطعات الأغلبية-الأقلية، وهو تطور من شأنه أن يضخم تمثيل الحزب الجمهوري في الكونگرس ويؤدي إلى الحرمان الفعال للعديد من الناخبين.[23][22][29][30] واعتبر الباحثون القانونيون القرار بمثابة تتويج لجهود روبرتس لإضعاف VRA منذ أن جلس على مقاعد البدلاء،[31][32][33] بينما اعتبرت وسائل الإعلام القرار بمثابة إنهاء فعلي لقانون حقوق التصويت ويضر بالعملية الديمقراطية في البلاد.[34][35] واعتبر معلقون آخرون أن الحكم بداية حقبة جديدة من قوانين جيم كرو، التي تسمح بالتمييز القانوني للأقليات.[36][37] وكان من المتوقع أن يؤثر رأي المحكمة على جميع مستويات الحكومة بما في ذلك الحكومات الولائية والمحلية.[38][39][40][41]

أظهر تحليل أجرته الگارديان أن ادعاء القاضي أليتو بأن نسبة إقبال الناخبين السود قد تجاوزت نسبة إقبال الناخبين البيض في اثنتين من آخر خمس انتخابات رئاسية، على الصعيدين الوطني وفي لويزيانا، استند إلى بيانات مضللة ومنهجية مشكوك فيها. استشهد أليتو بمذكرة من وزارة العدل استخدمت "نسبة من إجمالي سكان كل جماعة عرقية ممن تزيد أعمارهم عن 18 عاماً"؛ إلا أن هذا النهج "غير مُفضّل لدى الخبراء"، الذين يستخدمون بدلاً منه "نسبة إقبال الناخبين كنسبة من السكان المؤهلين للتصويت". وبعد هذا التحليل الأخير، اتسعت الفجوة في نسبة إقبال الناخبين، حيث انخفضت نسبة إقبال الناخبين السود منذ عام 2012، لا سيما بعد رأي المحكمة العليا في قضية مقاطعة شيلبي ضد هولدر الذي أبطل صيغة الموافقة المسبقة المحددة في المادة 4(ب) من قانون حقوق التصويت للولايات التي لديها مخاوف تاريخية بشأن التمييز، بما في ذلك لويزيانا.[42][43]

أشادت هيئة تحرير وال ستريت جورنال بالحكم، الذي رأت أنه أعاد العمل بالغرض من قانون حقوق التصويت، وهو منع التمييز في الاقتراع، وعدم استخدامه في تقسيم الدوائر الانتخابية.[44] President Donald Trump thanked "brilliant Justice" Alito for "authoring this important and appropriate Opinion".[45]

التبعات

في لويزيانا

The day the decision was announced, the non-Black voter plaintiffs who had prevailed asked the Court to make its decision effective immediately, skipping the usual 32-day window, to give the state the option to draw a new map for its 2026 congressional elections. The intervening minority voters asked the court not to do so, arguing that they should have the usual opportunity to seek rehearing and that the Purcell principle (which limits court decisions about election law that come too close before an affected election) should apply. Concurrently, the district court ordered that its injunction on the 2024 map would remain in place and the state be "afforded the opportunity to enact a Constitutionally compliant map."[46] Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill announced that they would suspend the state's May 16 primary to allow the legislature to draw a new, compliant map, even though mail-in ballots had already been sent to overseas and early-voting residents.[47] On May 4, the Supreme Court granted the request, making the decision effective immediately and allowing the state to proceed to redistrict before the election. While the order was unsigned, Alito wrote a concurring statement joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, and Jackson dissented.[48]

في ولايات أخرى

Two challenges to maps drawn from the 2020 census in Mississippi and North Dakota, which had been on the Supreme Court's docket, were added via order on May 18, 2026, with the Supreme Court vacating the current rulings and remanding the cases back to their lower courts to review in light of the Callais decision. Both cases were related to standing relative to the VRA; while both suits were brought by private individuals, the states had argued that challenges to district maps under VRA Section 2 could only be brought by a state attorney general.[49]

When Callais was decided, efforts by several states to perform mid-decade redistricting had been under way for months. At President Trump's urging, Texas with other Republican-controlled states redistricted in 2025 to increase the number of their Republican representatives in the House.[27] Democratic-controlled states, including California, retaliated with their own redistricting.[50] Over the winter of 2025–26, the Court allowed the Texas and then the California maps to take effect, rejecting legal challenges on the grounds that the new maps were driven by "pure partisanship" and thus did not implicate the VRA.[51][52] The Court also blocked a lower court mandate for New York to redraw a congressional district in Staten Island following a challenge by Black voters in the district.[53]

At first, the Callais decision appeared unlikely to affect the 2026 general election beyond the change to Louisiana's map, because states' primary elections had begun or would soon.[54] But despite expectations, several southern states initiated redistricting in the weeks after the decision was issued, claiming their existing maps with majority-minority districts previously mandated by the VRA were unconstitutional under Callais.[55][56] Tennessee Republicans quickly drew and passed a new map that eliminated the sole majority-minority House district in their state.[57] Florida legislators had been debating a redistricting bill to increase the number of Republican-controlled districts in time for primaries, and passed it the day Callais was decided.[58]

Alabama, whose legislature-drawn maps had been replaced with ones drawn by a special master under Allen v. Milligan, filed an emergency motion for the Supreme Court to allow its legislature's map to be reinstated. The state argued that Callais overrode Allen, justifying the use of legislature-drawn maps for the 2026 election even though early voting had already begun for the state primaries. At the same time, Governor Kay Ivey ordered a special legislative session for a new House district map to be drawn.[59][60] The Court granted the state's request, instructing the district court which had appointed the special master to reconsider the matter in light of Callais. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kagan and Jackson.[61]

انظر أيضاً

المصادر

  1. ^ Muller, Wesley; O'Donoghue, Julie; Canicosa, JC (February 18, 2022). "GOP keeps grip on Louisiana with status quo redistricting maps". Louisiana Illuminator. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  2. ^ Muller, Wesley (June 6, 2022). "Federal court rejects Louisiana congressional map". Louisiana Illuminator. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  3. ^ Howe, Amy (June 29, 2022). "Justices reinstate Louisiana voting map that is being challenged under Voting Rights Act". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  4. ^ Sherman, Mark (June 8, 2023). "Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act". Associated Press. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  5. ^ Greenberg, Madeleine (December 8, 2023). "Louisiana Republicans Ask 5th Circuit To Rehear Critical Voting Rights Act Case". Democracy Docket. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  6. ^ أ ب Hutchinson, Piper (February 1, 2024). "Voters sue over creation of Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district". Louisiana Illuminator. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  7. ^ VanSickle, Abby (October 10, 2025). "Who Are the Louisiana Voters Behind a Major Supreme Court Challenge?". The New York Times. Retrieved May 10, 2026.
  8. ^ Sherman, Mark; McGill, Kevin (May 15, 2024). "Supreme Court orders Louisiana to use congressional map with additional Black district in 2024 vote". Associated Press. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  9. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (November 4, 2024). "Supreme Court takes up Louisiana racial gerrymandering dispute". NBC News. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  10. ^ Fritze, John (March 24, 2025). "Supreme Court presses Louisiana on use of race during 2022 redistricting". CNN. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  11. ^ Fritze, John (June 27, 2025). "Supreme Court punts Louisiana's long-contested congressional map to the fall". CNN. Retrieved August 2, 2025.
  12. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (August 2, 2025). "Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case". NBC News.
  13. ^ Quinn, Melissa (August 1, 2025). "Supreme Court tees up Louisiana case on whether racial redistricting is unconstitutional". CBS News.
  14. ^ Fritze, John (August 2, 2025). "Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act". CNN.
  15. ^ VanSickle, Abbie (October 14, 2025). "Will the Supreme Court Use a Louisiana Case to Gut the Voting Rights Act?". The New York Times. Retrieved May 13, 2026.
  16. ^ Sherman, Mark (August 27, 2025). "Louisiana urges Supreme Court to bar use of race in redistricting, in attack on Voting Rights Act". Associated Press.
  17. ^ Fritze, John; Cole, Devan (October 15, 2025). "Oct. 14, 2025 - Supreme Court arguments on the future of the Voting Rights Act". CNN Politics.
  18. ^ Van Sickle, Abbie (October 15, 2025). "Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act". The New York Times. Retrieved May 8, 2026.
  19. ^ أ ب Gerstein, Josh; Howard, Andrew (April 29, 2026). "Supreme Court limits Voting Rights Act". Politico. Retrieved May 8, 2026.
  20. ^ أ ب Van Sickle, Abby (April 29, 2026). "Live Updates: Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Map in Voting Rights Case". The New York Times (in الإنجليزية الأمريكية). ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 29, 2026.
  21. ^ Olson, Walter (April 29, 2026). "Will Louisiana v. Callais Close the Door on Race-Conscious Redistricting?". Cato Institute. Retrieved May 8, 2026.
  22. ^ أ ب ت Sherman, Mark (April 29, 2026). "Supreme Court voids majority Black congressional district in Louisiana, boosting Republican chances". Associated Press. Retrieved May 8, 2026.
  23. ^ أ ب Levine, Sam (April 29, 2026). "US supreme court rules Louisiana must redraw its congressional map in landmark case". The Guardian.
  24. ^ أ ب ت ث ج ح Howe, Amy (April 29, 2026). "In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory". SCOTUSblog (in الإنجليزية). Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  25. ^ "Louisiana v. Callais". Brennan Center (in الإنجليزية). First, the ruling requires illustrative (sample) maps submitted by Section 2 plaintiffs as part of their proof meet all of a jurisdiction's political objectives, including goals related to the protection of incumbents.
  26. ^ Bouie, Jamelle (May 13, 2026). "Opinion | This Is Getting Dangerous". The New York Times (in الإنجليزية). A state, he writes, may "target partisan distribution of voters, a specific margin of victory for certain incumbents or any other goal not prohibited by the Constitution."
  27. ^ أ ب Cohn, Nate (October 15, 2025). "The Supreme Court Case That Could Hand the House to Republicans". The New York Times. Retrieved October 15, 2025.
  28. ^ Lo Wang, Hansi (October 15, 2025). "A Supreme Court ruling on voting rights could boost Republicans' redistricting efforts". NPR. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  29. ^ Sample, James (April 29, 2026). "5 things to know about the Supreme Court's landmark decision on the Voting Rights Act". ABC News.
  30. ^ Ax, Joseph (May 3, 2026). "How redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races". Reuters.
  31. ^ Biskupic, Joan (April 30, 2026). "John Roberts' effort to gut the Voting Rights Act is complete". CNN. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  32. ^ Gersen, Jeannie Suk (May 2, 2026). "How the Supreme Court demolished the Voting Rights Act". The New Yorker (in الإنجليزية الأمريكية). ISSN 0028-792X.
  33. ^ Costa, Robert (May 10, 2026). "Supreme Court ruling ushers in a new era of gerrymandering". CBS News. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  34. ^ Montellaro, Zach (April 29, 2026). "The Voting Rights Act is now a 'dead letter' after latest Supreme Court decision". Politico. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  35. ^ Donegen, Moira (April 30, 2026). "The supreme court's voting rights decision is a death knell for American democracy". The Guardian. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  36. ^ Anderson, Carol (May 6, 2026). "As a supreme court ruling looms, the US is dismantling Black voting power". The Guardian. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  37. ^ Berman, Ari (April 29, 2026). "Supreme Court Deals a Death Blow to the Voting Rights Act". Mother Jones. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  38. ^ Vollers, Anna Claire (May 4, 2026). "Supreme Court voting rights ruling set to reshape local power from statehouses to school boards". Stateline (news) (in الإنجليزية). The U.S. Supreme Court's new decision gutting a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act clears the way for state officials to drastically reshape not only Congress but also state legislatures, county commissions, city councils and even local school boards.
  39. ^ Sample, James. "5 things to know about the Supreme Court's landmark decision on the Voting Rights Act". ABC News (United States) (in الإنجليزية). Beyond Congress, the ruling will influence state legislative, local, and school board districts nationwide.
  40. ^ Urell, Aaryn (April 30, 2026). "Supreme Court Undermines Black Political Participation in Ruling on Voting Rights Act". Equal Justice Initiative. In a brief to the Supreme Court, the Brennan Center summarized the impact of Section 2:

    Indeed, since the 1980s, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has played an indispensable role in improving representation on city councils, school boards, county commissions, and other local government bodies across the country.
  41. ^ FIELDS, GARY; CHANDLER, KIM (April 30, 2026). "Supreme Court hollows out a landmark law that had protected minority voting rights for 6 decades". AP News (in الإنجليزية). Voting rights experts said the ruling leaves the Voting Rights Act only a shell of what it had been and will provide an open door for political mapmakers at every level — from local school districts to state legislatures to Congress — to undermine minority representation.
  42. ^ Levine, Sam; Craft, Will; Witherspoon, Andrew (May 8, 2026). "Samuel Alito's Voting Rights Act ruling cited misleading data from DoJ". The Guardian. Retrieved May 20, 2026.
  43. ^ Morris, Kevin T; Miller, Michael G. (2026). "Did Shelby County v. Holder Increase the Racial Turnout Gap?". The Journal of Politics. doi:10.1086/739960. ISSN 0022-3816.
  44. ^ The Editorial Board (April 29, 2026). "A Victory for Voting Rights at the Supreme Court". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  45. ^ Silverman, Hollie (April 29, 2026). "Trump Thanks Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Reshapes Voting Rights Act". Newsweek. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  46. ^ Howe, Amy (April 30, 2026). "After major voting rights ruling, parties dispute whether the Supreme Court should finalize decision immediately to allow changes to Louisiana's congressional map". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  47. ^ Cline, Sara; Brook, Jack; Lieb, David A (April 30, 2026). "Louisiana congressional primaries are suspended as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling". Associated Press (in الإنجليزية). Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  48. ^ Fritze, John (May 4, 2026). "Supreme Court justices spar over Louisiana's effort to speed up elimination of majority-Black congressional district". CNN. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  49. ^ Quinn, Melissa (May 18, 2026). "Supreme Court tells lower courts to take new look at 2 major voting rights cases". CBS News. Retrieved May 18, 2026.
  50. ^ Lieb, David (October 6, 2025). "More states are moving to redraw US House districts after Trump urged it for partisan gain". Associated Press. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  51. ^ VanSickle, Abbie (December 4, 2025). "Supreme Court Clears the Way for Republican-Friendly Texas Voting Maps". The New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  52. ^ VanSickle, Abbie (February 4, 2026). "Supreme Court Clears Way for California Voting Map". The New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  53. ^ Grumbach, Gary; Timm, Jane C. (March 3, 2026). "Supreme Court blocks redraw of lone GOP-held district in New York City". NBC News (in الإنجليزية). Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  54. ^ Parks, Miles; Wang, Hansi Lo (April 29, 2026). "Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander'". NPR. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  55. ^ Goldmacher, Shane; Balk, Tim (May 9, 2026). "10 Days That Shook the House Map and Democratic Confidence". The New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  56. ^ Walker, Adria R (April 30, 2026). "Louisiana postpones primaries as states rush to redraw districts after supreme court ruling". The Guardian (in الإنجليزية البريطانية). ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  57. ^ Corasaniti, Nick (May 11, 2026). "Why Republicans Are Still Drawing House Maps, While Democrats Are Stuck". The New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  58. ^ Dixon, Matt (April 29, 2026). "Florida Legislature passes redistricting plan creating four additional GOP-leaning House seats". NBC News (in الإنجليزية). Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  59. ^ Umbro, Jessica (April 29, 2026). "Alabama leaders push to lift Supreme Court redistricting ruling". WSFA. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  60. ^ Umbro, Jessica (May 1, 2026). "Gov. Ivey calls special session on Alabama redistricting". WSFA. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
  61. ^ Fritze, John (May 11, 2026). "Supreme Court allows Alabama to eliminate congressional district held by a Black Democrat". CNN. Retrieved May 12, 2026.
تمّ الاسترجاع من "https://www.marefa.org/w/index.php?title=لويزيانا_ضد_كاليس&oldid=4332723"