What Everyone is Missing in the Demise of the Voting Rights Act
Representation is the most basic of all political rights, and the fight for it has the potential to unite Americans across ideological and racial lines. Black Americans rightfully want an equal seat at the table of political power, and they have sacrificed immensely to obtain it. But zero-sum thinking that pits minority representation against representation for all Americans actually undermines that goal.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other guests at the signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
On April 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision that has sent shockwaves through political media. In Louisiana v. Callais the Court, in a 6–3 decision along ideological lines, ruled that the state of Louisiana’s creation of a second Black-majority congressional district constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Predictably left-wing commentators and civil rights leaders have declared that this decision represents a major setback in minority political power in the United States while right-wing commentators have pushed back that this is merely a step toward color blindness in the law. But both sides are missing the heart of the issue. The issue isn’t a lack of representation for specific racial groups, it’s a lack of representation for all Americans.
In 1929 Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act, which capped the number of representatives in the House at the current 435. At that time the population of the US was around 121 million people, so the ratio of representatives to citizens was about 1:278,000. By the time of the passing of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965, that ratio had ballooned to 1:446,000. In the intervening years from 1965 to the present day, the VRA has continued to ensure that minority majority districts continue to exist throughout the South, but it has done nothing about the broader loss of representation that the capped House has wrought. As the population of the US has continued to rise, the relationship of each representative to those they represent has grown more distant. Today with a population of around 330 million Americans, the current ratio of representatives to citizens sits at roughly 1:800,000.
“The issue isn’t a lack of representation for specific racial groups, it’s a lack of representation for all Americans.“
It’s nearly impossible for a representative to do his or her job effectively. Bigger districts make it harder to reach voters, making candidates more reliant on parties and donors. This shifts the responsibility of self-government from the hands of ordinary people to those of the wealthy and well-connected.
The Callais decision was controversial because it effectively gutted section 2 of the Civil Rights era VRA. While not officially overruling section 2, the Court has tightened the conditions by which minority voters can challenge state-drawn congressional maps. Prior to Callais if a new map had the effect of diluting minority representation, plaintiffs could win challenges to the map; now the Court has raised the standard to having to show racially discriminate intent.
The problem that the VRA was attempting to remedy was a real one: from the end of reconstruction in the late nineteenth century through the Jim Crow era of the early to mid-twentieth century, states across the South explicitly sought to dilute the political voice of Black Americans. In a democracy, when any group of citizens is disenfranchised, self government is distorted. As an immediate solution to the particular injustices of the 1960s the VRA made sense, but it also masked a more systemic lack of representation that affects all Americans regardless of race.
In response to the Callais decision some lawmakers and media figures are calling to pack the Supreme Court, and both blue and red states are doubling down on divisive political gerrymandering schemes to maximize their partisan advantages. But neither of these actions actually restore political representation to average Americans, and they all increase the toxic polarization ripping our country apart.
Repealing the 1929 Apportionment Act, and expanding the House of Representatives to catch up with population growth benefits all voters regardless of race or partisan leanings. By uncapping the House and passing a few minimal guardrails on how states draw congressional lines, making districts geographically contiguous and preventing any states from losing representatives going forward, we could achieve much greater political representation in this country. To those mourning the demise of the VRA, uncapping the House would ensure more minority representatives. To those perpetually under-represented Democrats of Texas and Republicans of California, uncapping the House would ensure more Texas Democrats and California Republicans in Congress. The same would hold true for other Democratic or Republican super majority states.
Representation is the most basic of all political rights, and the fight for it has the potential to unite Americans across ideological and racial lines. Black Americans rightfully want an equal seat at the table of political power, and they have sacrificed immensely to obtain it. But zero-sum thinking that pits minority representation against representation for all Americans actually undermines that goal. The truth is Americans of all races and ideological divisions are robbed of their voice when the structure of the House prevents their representatives from having an intimate relationship with the community they represent. Expanding the House and shrinking district sizes is the best path forward in a post Callais world.
