41:I[185,["/_next/static/chunks/08z4tkzvltetr.js","/_next/static/chunks/121~yigv24_j6.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jo3du-icy6v2.js","/_next/static/chunks/15cy49d~_zsjj.js","/_next/static/chunks/0..ktetnpeix7.js","/_next/static/chunks/0_htf5~kl..m1.js","/_next/static/chunks/0i6hzvr84kc1r.js"],"SendEmailButton"] 43:I[63625,["/_next/static/chunks/08z4tkzvltetr.js","/_next/static/chunks/121~yigv24_j6.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jo3du-icy6v2.js","/_next/static/chunks/15cy49d~_zsjj.js","/_next/static/chunks/0..ktetnpeix7.js","/_next/static/chunks/0_htf5~kl..m1.js","/_next/static/chunks/0i6hzvr84kc1r.js"],"AddToLibraryButton"] 46:I[45269,["/_next/static/chunks/08z4tkzvltetr.js","/_next/static/chunks/121~yigv24_j6.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jo3du-icy6v2.js","/_next/static/chunks/15cy49d~_zsjj.js","/_next/static/chunks/0..ktetnpeix7.js","/_next/static/chunks/0_htf5~kl..m1.js","/_next/static/chunks/0i6hzvr84kc1r.js"],"SignupCTA"] 3a:["$","h1",null,{"className":"max-w-[22ch] font-display text-[clamp(32px,4.5vw,48px)] font-medium leading-[1.05] tracking-[-0.02em] text-[color:var(--fg-1)] text-balance","children":"Louisiana v. Callais (§2 of the Voting Rights Act)"}] 3b:["$","div",null,{"className":"flex flex-wrap items-center gap-x-4 gap-y-1 font-mono text-[12px] uppercase tracking-[0.1em] text-[color:var(--fg-3)]","children":[["$","time",null,{"dateTime":"2026-05-01T01:00:00.000Z","children":"May 1, 2026"}],["$","span",null,{"aria-hidden":true,"children":"·"}],["$","span",null,{"children":"00:12:36"}],false]}] 42:T554,

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court held that Louisiana’s congressional map (SB8), which created an additional majority-Black district, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because race predominated in its design without a sufficient justification. The Court clarified that while compliance with §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can qualify as a compelling interest under strict scrutiny, §2 properly interpreted only requires proof of intentional discrimination—not mere disparate impact—and thus did not require Louisiana to add another majority-minority district. The Court revised the Thornburg v. Gingles framework to align with that interpretation, requiring plaintiffs to show race—not partisanship—drives voting patterns and to produce illustrative maps that satisfy all legitimate state districting goals without relying on race. Applying this updated framework, the Court found the earlier Robinson plaintiffs failed to establish a §2 violation, so Louisiana lacked a compelling interest to use race in drawing SB8, leading the Court to affirm the lower court’s ruling that the map violates the Fourteenth Amendment.