What the Supreme Court’s Callais Decision Means for Missouri Redistricting
The Supreme Court just handed down a major decision on race, voting rights, and congressional maps.
The case is called Louisiana v. Callais. It dealt with redistricting in Louisiana, but it will matter for us here in Missouri.
At the center of the case is a simple question:
Can the government draw political districts around race?
For years, activists and courts have used Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to pressure states into drawing majority-minority congressional districts. In practice, that meant race became one of the main drivers behind political maps.
In Callais, the Court ruled that Louisiana’s new congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The reasoning was straightforward: the Voting Rights Act did not actually require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district.
Holy moly! "Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq., was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very… pic.twitter.com/ztZcAGpd0s
— Eric W. (@EWess92) April 29, 2026
The Court did not erase the Voting Rights Act, but it did make clear that Section 2 cannot be used as a blank check for race-based redistricting.
In fact, Section 2 may now be used to invalidate racial gerrymandering.
You have to understand how brilliant Alito is. This is actually *better* than getting rid of section 2 outright, because it means section 2 can be used to CHALLENGE majority-minority districts (for impermissibly using race).
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) April 29, 2026
That means the redistricting fight in Missouri may not be finished.
And the next fight may be over St. Louis.
This decision comes at a critical moment. Missouri just passed a new congressional map, opponents are trying to undo it through a referendum, and the legal fight over redistricting is moving into its next phase. Callais won’t end Missouri’s map debate. It may open another front.
What happened in Louisiana?
After the 2020 Census, Louisiana drew a congressional map with one majority-Black district. Voting-rights groups sued, arguing that the state needed to create a second majority-Black district under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Louisiana eventually drew a new map with two majority-Black districts.
Then another group of voters challenged that new map. Their argument was straightforward: Louisiana had sorted voters by race in violation of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court agreed.
The Court held that Louisiana could not justify its race-based map by pointing to the Voting Rights Act when the law did not actually require that map. In other words, a state cannot use federal voting law as an excuse to make race the controlling factor in drawing congressional districts.
That is the heart of the decision.
The Voting Rights Act protects against discrimination. It does not give government permission to sort voters into racial categories whenever politicians, courts, or consultants think it would produce a preferred map.
What changed?
The Court did not say Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is gone.
Before Callais, a lot of redistricting fights operated under a dangerous assumption: if a state could draw another majority-minority district, maybe it had to. That gave activists a powerful tool to push states toward race-conscious maps.
The Court rejected that logic.
The new standard is much more demanding. Plaintiffs cannot simply point to racial disparities or draw an alternative map with more majority-minority districts. They have to show circumstances that support a strong inference of intentional discrimination.
The burden of proof has shifted.
Activists used to be able to redraw maps simply by showing more majority-minority districts could have been created. Now they have to show that the legislature was acting with discriminatory intent.
Furthermore, if a state legislature says they are drawing districts for partisan reasons, plaintiffs must account for party affiliation when trying to prove racially polarized voting, especially where race and party preference overlap.
That is a major shift.
Race can no longer be treated as the default answer in every redistricting fight.
Missouri is already fighting over congressional maps
Missouri is not watching this debate from the sidelines.
Last year, Missouri lawmakers passed a new congressional map during a special session called by Governor Mike Kehoe. Governor Kehoe signed the “Missouri First Map” into law on September 28, 2025. The governor’s office announced the signing here.
That map focused heavily on the Kansas City-based 5th Congressional District, represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver. The goal was not a mystery: Republicans wanted a map that would give them a better chance to win one more congressional seat.
Opponents have tried to stop the map through the courts and through the referendum process.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers had the authority to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade.
The Missouri First Map redrew district lines around Kansas City.
Callais raises the next question.
If the Supreme Court has now narrowed the Voting Rights Act argument for preserving race-conscious districts, Missouri lawmakers may have more room to reconsider the St. Louis-based 1st District.
Why the 1st District could be next
Callais points toward St. Louis.
Missouri’s 1st Congressional District is centered in St. Louis and northern St. Louis County. It remains one of the most heavily Democratic districts in Missouri.
Before the Supreme Court decided Callais, Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt was already pointing to the issue.
“I think that you’ll see a number of those discussions, not just in Missouri, but across particularly the mid-South and the southeast and the South as these districts have been protected by an interpretation of the law that’s about to get thrown out,” Schmitt said.
KCUR
That was before Callais.
Now the Court has acted.
It is too early to say whether Missouri lawmakers should redraw the 1st District.
But the old assumption is weaker now.
For years, districts like Missouri’s 1st were treated by many as if they had to be preserved because of race-based Voting Rights Act concerns. After Callais, that argument is much harder to make.
What this does not mean
Callais is a major decision, but it should not be overstated.
- – It does not mean the Voting Rights Act is gone.
- – It does not mean Missouri can draw maps however it wants.
- – It does not mean Missouri’s 1st District is automatically unconstitutional.
- – It does not mean majority-minority districts are banned.
What it does mean is that courts will be much more skeptical when race is used to justify congressional maps. The Voting Rights Act still protects against discrimination. After Callais, it cannot be used as a blank check for race-based redistricting.
The bigger principle
This case is about more than Louisiana pr Missouri’s 1st District.
It’s about the original intent of the 14th Amendment – removing racial discrimination from our governmental system.
Americans have equal dignity, equal rights, and equal claims to representation under the law.
The Voting Rights Act remains an important protection against discrimination. But it cannot become an excuse for discrimination.
Andy Bakker
Executive Director
Liberty Alliance USA