Radical US Supreme Court eviscerates the Voting Rights Act

Communities of color will have a harder time electing one of their own after the SCOTUS ruling.

It’s a dark day for American democracy. In a move that feels like a punch to the gut for those fighting for a seat at the table, the Supreme Court has once again signaled that the Voting Rights Act is more of a suggestion than a shield.

The Court’s 6-3 decision Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais — decided along the usual ideological fault lines — handed a win to those who want to keep the status quo, and a major loss to the AAPI and Black communities who are just looking for a fair shake in the voting booth.

The 6-3 vote was predictable. The conservative GOP majority ruled again putting personal idealogy above precedent. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett were in the majority overwhelming Justices Elena Kagel, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito essentially argued that Louisiana’s attempt to create a second majority-Black district relied too heavily on race. In the eyes of the conservative wing, trying to fix racial underrepresentation is, ironically, unconstitutional racial stereotyping.

'Colorblind' means blind to reality

We know what this means. Whether it’s the Vietnamese American hubs in the Gulf Coast or the Chinese and Filipino communities in Houston and Atlanta, or the South Asian suburbs in Silicon Valley, it means the Court has given a green light to map-makers to slice and dice our communities until our collective voice is just a whisper. As the dissenters noted, when you stop looking at race in a country where race still defines the political landscape, you aren’t being "colorblind"—you’re just being blind to reality.

Kagan argued that the majority is creating a "Catch-22" for states. If they don't consider race, they violate the Voting Rights Act; if they do, the Court strikes it down as a racial gerrymander.

The dissenters warned that this ruling makes it nearly impossible for minority communities — including our rapidly growing AAPI neighborhoods — to prove that their votes are being diluted. By making the legal bar so high, the Court is effectively telling these communities: "Your growth doesn't equal power."

“The consequences will extend far beyond Louisiana. Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial group in the country, and we are growing fastest in the South, where today’s decision gives legislators the most cover to draw us out of political power that our communities are fighting hard to build," states Asian Law Caucus' Executive Director Aarti Kohli.

“When the Voting Rights Act is undermined, Black voters are harmed first. But the damage won’t stop there. The Supreme Court has gutted one of the last protections we have against racial discrimination in our democracy. It puts the political power of Asian Americans and communities of color at risk," Kohli continued.

By making it harder to use the VRA to protect minority districts, the Court has given a green light to map-makers to slice and dice our communities until our collective voice is just a whisper. As the dissenters noted, when you stop looking at race in a country where race still defines the political landscape, you aren’t being "colorblind"—you’re just being blind to reality.

What does this mean for the 2026 midterms and beyond? For our community, it’s all about the "Cracking," a gerrymandering tactic that splits a cohesive group of voters (based on political party, race, or community interest) across multiple districts to dilute their voting power. By dividing this population, the group becomes a minority in each district, preventing them from electing their preferred candidates.

By making it nearly impossible to challenge maps that divide our growing populations in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, the Court is essentially trying to keep the "bamboo ceiling" firmly attached to the halls of power. When you divide a vibrant AAPI neighborhood across three different districts, you ensure that our specific needs—from language access to anti-hate legislation—never get a champion in Congress.

In California where a quarter of AAPIs in the US reside, the biggest immediate risk is at the city and county levels (like in San Jose, Oakland, or Los Angeles), where "Chinatowns" or "Little Saigons" can be split between districts to dilute their influence.

“We see what this means in practice: communities are unfairly split for partisan gains. A Chinatown carved between three districts," says the Asian Law Caucus. "That is how political power is taken — by design, with impunity, and now with the Supreme Court’s blessing. It means communities of color end up represented by politicians who don’t look like them, don’t know them, and don’t have to listen to them."

AAPI voters are currently considered "influential" in six of California’s 52 congressional districts. The ruling makes it harder to defend these lines if they are challenged as being "too racial" rather than "partisan."

View from the edge

The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais is just the latest blow in a nearly 15-year calculated  campaign by the Roberts Court and the powers that put them on the bench, to dismantle the Voting Rights Act. Legal experts and civil rights leaders often describe this as "death by a thousand cuts."

There is hope because some states -- like California and New York -- are crafting their own Voting Rights Acts but there is already a target on these laws. The conservative wing of the SCOTUS is already signaling that if these state laws focus "too much" on race to fix representation, they might strike those down, too.

So, what does this mean for the 2026 midterms and beyond? For our community, it’s all about the "Cracking," a gerrymandering tactic that splits a cohesive group of voters (based on political party, race, or community interest) across multiple districts to dilute their voting power. By dividing this population, the group becomes a minority in each district, preventing them from ever electing the candidates who might best represent their common interests and perspective.

By making it nearly impossible to challenge maps that divide our growing populations in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, the Court is essentially trying to keep the "bamboo ceiling" firmly attached to the halls of power. When you divide a vibrant AAPI neighborhood across three different districts, you ensure that our specific needs—from language access to anti-hate legislation—never get a champion in Congress.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge.