Last year, in my initial blog post for UCS, I posed a question that continues to resonate with many Americans: “Do we still have a democracy?” Reflecting on my past efforts advocating for the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and my role as a policy analyst with the national NAACP, I noted a persistent campaign aimed at undermining the VRA, an increase in partisan gerrymandering, and the adverse effects on racial and ethnic minority communities due to heightened voter suppression across the nation. I foresaw further decline before any meaningful reform could occur.
Regrettably, the situation deteriorated significantly.
In April, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky characterized the decision as rendering Section 2 of the VRA “all but a dead letter.” This ruling dismantled over 60 years of voter protections, a culmination of decades of legal cases gradually eroding voting safeguards. Let’s explore the implications and future steps.
The fate of the VRA
We begin with Shelby County v. Holder, previously discussed in detail in my initial blog entry. That decision allowed states to alter voting laws without federal preclearance, paving the way for a surge of laws targeting communities in states with histories of Jim Crow-era discrimination. Callais delivered the final blow. The case centered on a Louisiana congressional map designed to provide Black voters meaningful representation—an outcome of an earlier VRA-related court case, Robinson v Landry. In the majority opinion for Callais, Justice Alito held that states are prohibited from using race as the main factor in drawing districts, even when required to comply with Section 2 of the VRA. The court concluded that only proof of intentional racial discrimination, not disparate impact, constitutes a violation. Justice Kagan, in her dissent, pointed out that proving discriminatory intent is “almost always impossible” since lawmakers seldom disclose their motives explicitly. In fact, Congress amended the VRA in 1982 to ensure that discriminatory outcomes, not just intent, are considered.
The repercussions of this decision will be profound.
The path to this moment
Several state legislatures have already started to redraw district maps and eliminate majority-minority districts without the need for federal approval. This could diminish Black voters’ influence by fragmenting communities and dispersing their votes across multiple districts. Coupled with the Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which removed partisan gerrymandering from federal court oversight, state legislatures now possess almost unchecked power to redraw maps for political gain. Justice Alito’s opinion endorses this, asserting that states have the “prerogative to draw districts…to achieve partisan advantage,” and that partisan map designs are “constitutionally permissible” and “legitimate goals.” As Chemerinsky observed, “If any one of these cases had come out differently, Louisiana v. Callais would not matter.”
The Callais ruling is not a failure of the system but a reflection of its original design. Our nation was built on unequal access, and while the VRA remains, the Callais decision has reduced it from a symbol of hope to a mere shadow, aligning our voting laws with a long history of disenfranchisement in the U.S. Our winner-take-all electoral system has always been susceptible to manipulation. This decision was simply the tipping point for an already unstable system.
In this system, the candidate with the most votes secures 100% of the district’s representation, leaving others with nothing. If your candidate loses, you have no representation, even if they garnered 49% of the vote. This flaw makes gerrymandering particularly damaging. By dismantling majority-minority districts and spreading those voters across various districts, their influence is effectively muted. Following Callais, partisan officials in states can pursue this strategy with minimal legal risk.
A systemic remedy: Proportional Representation
Throughout my career, I have dedicated myself to voting rights and democracy issues. More often than not, we were defending against the latest threats, relying on the VRA to safeguard a multi-racial democracy. That protection is now gone. The Callais decision necessitates broader thinking.
This broader thinking should involve adopting proportional representation (PR), which organizations like FairVote, Protect Democracy, and New America have advocated for years. Under PR, districts would have multiple seats, and parties would receive seats based on their vote share. If Republicans earn a third of the votes, they receive a third of the seats. Voters would generally have at least one representative who aligns with their values. PR is already utilized in parts of the U.S., including Portland, Oregon for city officials; Cambridge, Massachusetts for its city council; and Minneapolis, Minnesota and Eastpointe, Michigan for local offices. Electing multiple officials from a district under PR increases fairness and makes it much harder, if not impossible, to gerrymander voters out of their representation.
Globally, PR is the prevalent electoral system, while the U.S.’s “first past the post,” winner-take-all approach is an outlier. Although our democratic process once set us apart, the existing structures have led to deep-seated inequality across racial and economic lines.
Protect Democracy’s findings show that with lower thresholds to win each seat, the strategies that make gerrymandering effective under the winner-take-all system lose their impact. Moreover, as seen in Eastpointe, Michigan, and Newburgh, New York, minority representation improves without requiring race-based line-drawing, which Justice Alito argued in his Callais opinion rendered the Louisiana map unconstitutional. Research also indicates that PR reduces polarization by fostering multi-party coalitions and enhancing community engagement by making elections more competitive. Furthermore, PR tends to encourage more political parties and competition, leading to less polarization and more opportunities for compromise.
Science, facts, and electoral reform
In 2022, over 200 political scientists addressed Congress, declaring that our winner-take-all system “is fundamentally broken.” Political sociologist Larry Diamond argued that winner-take-all systems are unsuitable for countries with “deep ethnic, regional, religious, or other emotional and polarizing divisions.” This describes our current situation. Despite Justice Alito’s assertions, race and partisanship are closely linked in the U.S.
Studies show that countries with proportional representation tend to have legislatures that more accurately reflect their constituencies’ values and are more likely to implement policies that a majority of citizens support. Additionally, these governments are more inclined to adopt stronger environmental protections and invest in education and infrastructure, as Fair Vote Canada summarizes in its review of research on proportional representation’s outcomes.
These arguments are not partisan; they highlight structural issues that, if addressed, would benefit all Americans. I have attended numerous meetings on how to repair the VRA after another protection is lost. The crucial question is how to establish a voting system that serves everyone.
Steps we can take
The situation is undeniably grim.
The individuals behind the VRA’s enactment—Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, Clarence Mitchell Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer, Hosea Williams, and many others, both known and unknown—dedicated countless hours and risked their lives for these protections. The racial impact of this decision will be significant and enduring. However, this is not the time to lose hope. Now, more than ever, is the time for what John Lewis famously called “good trouble.”
First, efforts to reinstate the Voting Rights Act must intensify. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 14) must remain a priority, pass both the House and Senate, and become law.
Second, we should endorse state and local initiatives for proportional representation. As mentioned earlier, several cities have already implemented ranked-choice voting and other reforms. These efforts warrant renewed focus in light of the Callais decision.
Third, scientists and researchers must remain engaged. Data, evidence, and public analysis of how electoral maps and rules affect real communities are vital accountability tools. Even when courts are inactive, the public must understand the changes and their implications. Science can also aid the transition to proportional representation. There are various approaches to developing a more proportional system, and communities deserve input on which system to adopt. UCS collaborates with democracy experts and local communities to pursue this work. Through statistical modeling and other research methods, scientists can demonstrate the effectiveness of different approaches that communities can assess based on their values and needs.
This week marks Juneteenth, a long-standing celebration of Black liberation and participation in public life. We must not let decisions like Callais hinder our progress.
The path ahead will be challenging, but safeguarding democracy, championing civil rights, and resisting authoritarianism is never easy. The VRA’s enactment in 1965 was due to millions of Americans refusing to accept an unfair and unequal democracy. That standard remains our goal, and it is still worth striving for.
