When drawing congressional district maps, how should states balance racial representation with other redistricting criteria?

Background

Congressional redistricting — the process of redrawing district boundaries after each census — requires mapmakers to balance multiple criteria, including equal population, geographic compactness, preservation of communities of interest, and protections for racial and language minorities under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For decades, Section 2 has been interpreted by courts to sometimes require the creation of majority-minority districts to prevent the dilution of minority voting power. However, the Supreme Court's April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais has dramatically reshaped this landscape. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map containing a second majority-Black district, finding it constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and significantly narrowed how Section 2 can be used in redistricting disputes. The decision has triggered a wave of mid-decade redistricting activity across multiple states, making this one of the most intensely contested redistricting periods in modern American history.

Supporters of limiting the use of race in redistricting argue that the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause demands a colorblind approach to government decision-making and that sorting voters by race to draw district lines is itself a form of discrimination. They contend that mapmakers should prioritize race-neutral criteria like compactness, contiguity, and respect for existing political boundaries. Opponents counter that without meaningful racial considerations in redistricting, decades of progress in minority political representation could be reversed. Civil rights organizations and dissenting justices have warned that because racial identity and partisan affiliation are closely correlated — particularly in Southern states — allowing unchecked partisan gerrymandering while restricting race-conscious mapping effectively permits the dilution of minority voting power under a different label. The Congressional Research Service notes that traditional redistricting criteria like compactness and community preservation often involve tradeoffs, and decisionmakers must weigh competing goals without a single definitive answer for how districts should be drawn.

The stakes are considerable. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Callais ruling could reshape political representation for communities of color nationwide, as states that previously maintained majority-minority districts may now redraw maps that fragment minority populations. Multiple states, including Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and others, have already moved to redraw their congressional maps in the wake of the decision. How states navigate this tension between anti-discrimination protections and race-neutral redistricting principles will determine whether millions of minority voters retain meaningful electoral influence — and whether the Voting Rights Act's remaining protections can withstand future legal challenges.