Bringing Representation Back to the People of Louisiana

If the Supreme Court moves to narrow or reinterpret Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the political map of the South could soon look very different. The comparison many analysts have shown — one map reflecting the current status quo, and another showing what could happen without Section 2 — offers a vivid picture of that potential reality. The “plausible scenario” is one in which nearly all congressional and legislative districts across the Deep South tilt more decisively toward majority control, with far fewer race-based carveouts. For Louisiana and its neighbors, that outcome would represent more than a shift in political coloring. It would be a restoration of power to the states themselves.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was written to protect against intentional racial discrimination in voting. Over time, however, it has evolved into a tool for federal courts and the Department of Justice to mandate the creation of “majority-minority” districts — often forcing state legislatures to draw maps with race as a primary factor. The result has been decades of litigation, uncertainty, and maps that reflect demographic engineering rather than genuine political preference. A change in how the Supreme Court interprets this law could mark a turning point, allowing states like Louisiana to draw maps that reflect their own communities, culture, and politics without the constant threat of federal intervention.

For Louisiana, this is not an abstract debate. Our state has been at the center of several high-profile redistricting cases in recent years, with courts intervening to force the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district. Yet the argument from Baton Rouge has been clear: Louisiana’s legislators should not be compelled to build districts around racial statistics rather than local realities. The state’s position — now being tested before the nation’s highest court — is that the Constitution requires equal treatment of voters, not perpetual race-conscious districting that locks in racial divisions. Limiting Section 2 would not eliminate protections against discrimination; it would simply return the map-drawing process to the elected representatives of each state.

Critics of this position argue that a narrower interpretation of the Voting Rights Act would silence minority voters and erode decades of civil rights progress. But that argument assumes that federal oversight is the only safeguard of fairness, which simply isn’t true. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments already prohibit racial discrimination in voting. What’s at stake here is not whether those protections remain — they do — but whether Washington should continue to dictate how every state must organize its districts. By stepping back, the Court would give states like Louisiana the chance to demonstrate that fairness and accountability can be achieved locally, without constant supervision from federal judges.

This debate also goes to the heart of how our constitutional republic was designed to function. Before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures — not by direct popular vote. The Founders intended that system to ensure that state governments retained a direct hand in shaping federal policy and that senators would represent the interests of their states as sovereign entities, not just individual voters. That arrangement rooted national decision-making in local accountability and reflected the diversity of the states that make up the Union. In much the same way, allowing state legislatures to determine their own congressional maps restores that same principle of localized representation. It ensures that Louisiana’s unique political and cultural geography — from the bayous of Terrebonne Parish to the hills of Ouachita — is reflected through the choices of the people closest to those communities.

Returning that authority to the states would not undermine democracy; it would deepen it. When representation flows from local legislatures and reflects regional identities rather than federally imposed formulas, citizens gain a stronger voice in how their communities are governed. Just as the old pre-Seventeenth Amendment system anchored the Senate in the realities of each state, modern redistricting — free from Section 2’s racial mandates — would anchor congressional maps in the realities of Louisiana’s people. It’s about ensuring that the balance of power remains not in Washington, but in Baton Rouge and the parishes where everyday Louisianans live, work, and vote.

The benefits of such a change go beyond legal philosophy. It would mean fewer drawn-out lawsuits, less taxpayer money spent on endless redistricting battles, and more time for elected officials to focus on governing. It would also produce maps that more accurately reflect how people in each state actually vote. Louisiana’s political culture is distinct — shaped by its parishes, its history, and its sense of local identity. Those factors are often lost when maps are designed to meet racial targets instead of community ties.

Allowing states to prioritize compactness, contiguity, and shared interests over racial composition would produce districts that make sense to the people who live in them.

This potential ruling would also make state sovereignty more than a slogan. For too long, the balance of power between Washington and the states has tilted toward the federal government. Section 2 has become a lever for that imbalance, giving unelected judges the final word on local representation. Returning that authority to state legislatures would reaffirm one of the country’s founding principles — that states are not administrative subdivisions of the federal government but coequal entities with the right to govern themselves. In Louisiana, where trust in local governance runs deep, that principle still resonates.

There will, of course, be passionate debate over the implications of this change. Opponents will frame it as a rollback of civil rights; supporters will see it as a reassertion of constitutional order. But from a Louisiana perspective, this is about more than partisan advantage. It’s about restoring the proper relationship between the states and Washington. It’s about ensuring that maps reflect real communities — from Shreveport to Houma — not formulas drafted in a federal courtroom. And it’s about letting the people of Louisiana, through their elected representatives, decide how best to represent themselves.

If the Supreme Court does move to narrow Section 2, the political map of the South could indeed begin to look more like that “plausible scenario” — more uniform, more stable, and, in many ways, more reflective of the true will of the voters. For those who believe in self-government and state sovereignty, that outcome would not be a threat to democracy but a return to it — a modern echo of the very system our Founders envisioned, where the states themselves, not distant officials, hold the reins of representation.