Fact check: What is the role of the Voting Rights Act in federal court gerrymandering reviews?

1. Summary of the results

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) plays a central and critical role in federal court gerrymandering reviews, serving as the primary legal tool for challenging discriminatory redistricting practices. The Act operates through two main mechanisms in gerrymandering cases:

Section 2 of the VRA is the most active component in current gerrymandering litigation, allowing courts to review and strike down redistricting maps that dilute minority voting power ^[1]. This provision has been instrumental in at least 16 cases over the past decade, including successful challenges in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where courts found unlawful vote dilution and ordered the creation of new majority-Black districts ^[1].

A prominent example is the Allen v. Milligan case, where the ACLU successfully used the VRA to challenge Alabama's congressional map, proving it diluted Black voting power ^[1]. The Act enables challenges to political districts that deprive minority voters of the chance to elect representatives of their choice ^[2].

However, the VRA's effectiveness has been significantly weakened. The preclearance provision, which required states with histories of racial discrimination to submit election law changes for federal review before implementation, was effectively eliminated by the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder ^[3]. This provision had been a key preventive measure ensuring that redistricting changes didn't discriminate against voters of color ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several critical aspects missing from a basic understanding of the VRA's role:

Conservative legal challenges are actively working to further weaken the VRA's power in gerrymandering reviews. Louisiana is currently urging the Supreme Court to bar the use of race in redistricting in what amounts to an attack on the Voting Rights Act ^[2]. The state argues that intentional creation of majority-minority districts violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ^[2].

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has systematically weakened the VRA through multiple decisions beyond Shelby County, including Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which narrowed the scope of what constitutes illegal voter suppression ^[4]. These decisions have made it easier for states to restrict ballot access under the guise of election integrity ^[4].

Civil rights advocates and organizations like the ACLU and Alliance for Justice benefit from maintaining strong VRA protections, as these enable their litigation strategies against discriminatory redistricting. Conversely, state governments and political parties that benefit from gerrymandered maps have financial and political incentives to weaken VRA enforcement.

The pending Louisiana v. Callais case represents a potentially devastating blow to the VRA, as it could make compliance with Section 2 nearly impossible and give states carte blanche to divide and dilute minority voting power ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it's a straightforward inquiry about the VRA's role in federal gerrymandering reviews. However, any response that fails to acknowledge the systematic weakening of the VRA over the past decade would be incomplete and potentially misleading.

The most significant omission would be failing to mention that the VRA's power has been dramatically curtailed since 2013, with the loss of preclearance leading to a significant increase in voter suppression laws and practices that disproportionately affect minority voters ^[3].

Additionally, presenting the VRA as having consistent, strong enforcement power without acknowledging the ongoing legal attacks and the potential for further weakening through cases like Louisiana v. Callais would misrepresent the current legal landscape ^{[2] [4]}.