Supreme Court Guts the Voting Rights Act. Minnesota Has Its Own — And Advocates Say It Has Never Mattered More.
MSR editor Jasmine McBride reports on the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which effectively dismantled the federal Voting Rights Act, and what it means for Minnesota, where Attorney General Keith Ellison and voting rights advocates say the state's own Voting Rights Act is now more critical than ever.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais has effectively dismantled one of the most consequential civil rights laws in American history, and while Minnesota may not feel the full force immediately, voting rights advocates and legal experts say the state is far from immune.
The decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by the court’s five other conservative justices, invalidated a Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana and ruled that plaintiffs challenging racially discriminatory voting maps must now prove intentional discrimination. A standard so high that most voting rights challenges will be nearly impossible to win. Justice Elena Kagan called it “the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act” in her dissent.
For Minnesota, the impact is indirect but real, according to Attorney General Keith Ellison.
“The decision weakened Section Two, and Section Two of the Voting Rights Act matters because we are in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and they’ve already limited private plaintiffs’ ability to bring Section Two cases,” Ellison said. Over 100 historic Section Two cases were brought by private nonprofits like the NAACP, only 12 or 13 were brought by the Department of Justice. A recent Eighth Circuit ruling had already restricted that access, and the Callais decision narrows it further.
Minnesota is not a covered Voting Rights Act state, meaning it was not subject to the law’s preclearance requirements. But the state does have its own Voting Rights Act, a state-level tool that Ellison said now becomes even more critical.
“Minnesota has a good Voting Rights Act of its own, and that is designed to provide state-level protections against vote dilution,” he said. “As the federal path is harder, Minnesota’s Voting Rights Act is even more important.”
That distinction matters. While other states may see their minority districts dismantled with no legal recourse, Minnesota residents can still challenge racially discriminatory maps under state law, a protection most states simply don’t have.
James Trice of the Public Policy Project said the ruling exposes something deeper than a single legal decision.
“This decision underscores the persistence of racism and whiteness in maintaining power and perpetuating anti-Blackness and inequity,” Trice said. “It reinforces the country’s unwillingness to truly become an egalitarian society that works for and benefits everyone. As Eddie said in a recent interview, racism still occupies the throne of the country.”
TakeAction Minnesota Co-Executive Director Elianne Farhat was equally pointed in her response.
“A political party tries to court your vote. An authoritarian regime tries to keep you from voting,” Farhat said in a statement. “The MAGA justices on the Roberts Court have once again betrayed the American people, destroying the Voting Rights Act in a bid to lock themselves into power.”
Farhat noted that while TakeAction Minnesota does not expect to see the direct impacts of the ruling in Minnesota this election cycle, the organization is not standing down.
“While this ruling is a blow to our shared project of building a thriving multiracial democracy, we are committed to redoubling our efforts to bring more voices into the democratic process and into the voting booth at every step of the election process,” she said. “Across the country, the many can defeat the money by demanding our state leaders keep their hands off our vote and not gut the voting power of Black and brown citizens.”
For Ellison, the ruling was not a surprise, and that, he said, is precisely the point.
“The people who are against democracy and civil rights didn’t like the Voting Rights Act in 1965, but they never quit trying to defeat it,” he said. “I’m not surprised, because I know that the people who don’t believe in democracy are determined. The question is, are they more determined than us?”
Ellison was direct about what he believes communities of color must do in response: vote.
“Minnesota has the highest voter turnout in the country, but that still means even in a presidential year, about 20% of Minnesotans are not voting, and they are disproportionately Black, low-income, Native American and Asian,” he said. “Not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender. You are handing your power over to somebody else.”
He warned that efforts to discourage voting, including from public figures and celebrities, should be viewed with suspicion.
“Anybody who tells you that voting doesn’t matter, that the parties are the same, they’re lying to you,” Ellison said. “This year you will see celebrities saying stuff like that. You better ask yourself who’s paying them.”
The stakes, he said, are generational.
“You’re growing up in a world where rights are declining,” Ellison said. “The Voting Rights Act was passed in August 1965. In 1973, the Supreme Court said you could make your own decisions about pregnancy, now they say it’s up to the state legislature. The only question is, will this generation step up to the challenge?”
For now, Minnesota’s own Voting Rights Act stands as a critical line of defense. But advocates across the state agree that legal protections alone are not enough, and that the most powerful tool available to communities of color remains the same one the Voting Rights Act was designed to protect.
The vote.
For more information on Louisiana v. Callais, visit www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf.
Jasmine McBride welcomes reader responses at jmcbride@spokesman-recorder.com.