HARRISBURG — Legal experts are closely watching a major redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court that could leave minority communities in Pennsylvania and nationwide with one less tool to fight for representation.
The federal case centers around a landmark civil rights law that has protected minority communities from racial discrimination in voting practices for decades. The statute allows voters to sue state and local governments if district lines discriminate against racial minority groups.
The Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision, and election lawyers, academics, and advocates say Pennsylvania likely wouldn't see immediate changes to the state’s congressional and legislative lines if the law falls.
Without the legal right to sue the state for maps that dilute the voting power of minority communities, they say, residents of those communities lose a key ability to use the court system to change district lines.
For example, Pennsylvania’s current congressional map was chosen by the state Supreme Court out of about a dozen different maps proposed after plaintiffs sued the commonwealth.
While that decision didn’t involve alleged violations of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), it shows that lawsuits often ultimately decide district lines.
There is at least one recent VRA case in Pennsylvania that could be impacted by any changes to the law’s interpretation. In Luzerne County, voters allege in a suit that the fast-growing Hispanic population was unable to elect a candidate of choice to a school board in the Hazleton area.
Carol Kuniholm, chair of the advocacy group Fair Districts PA, which seeks to end gerrymandering, said if the court rules that the federal law should be interpreted differently or strikes part of it down, there’s no guarantee that state law can provide the same level of legal protection.
“It’s hard to know what level of protection there would be [from the state statutes,] because it hasn’t really been tested in Pennsylvania redistricting for minority communities,” Kuniholm told Spotlight PA.
The Supreme Court last held oral arguments in October. Advocates await a decision from the court, which could arrive at any time.
Here’s what you need to know:
What’s the case before the Supreme Court?
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, centers on whether a key provision of a federal law designed to protect the voting rights of people of color is unconstitutional.
It was filed in response to another case. Black voters in Louisiana first sued the state following the 2020 redistricting cycle, alleging that the congressional map drawn violated the VRA, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race.
The Louisiana congressional district map created only one majority-Black district. Voters argued that the map unlawfully packed Black voters into a single district and reduced their overall political influence. Because Black residents make up about one-third of the state’s population, the plaintiffs contended that they should have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in two congressional districts.
A panel of federal court judges agreed with the plaintiffs, resulting in the Louisiana state legislature redrawing the map to create two Black-majority districts.
The current case arose in response to this new map. A group of voters — identifying themselves as "non-African American” — alleged that the new map violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which dictates that all citizens must be treated equally under the eyes of the law.
The Supreme Court faces the question of whether Louisiana’s newest map and Section 2 of the VRA — the provision Black voters relied on to challenge and redraw the maps — is unconstitutional.
Section 2 explicitly prohibits laws that result in the disenfranchisement of citizens based on race or language spoken, providing a framework to challenge district lines that dilute minority votes. It applies to federal, state, and local governments.
“Section 2 of VRA prohibits intentional race discrimination and things that have a discriminatory impact,” said Ben Geffen, a voting rights lawyer at the Public Interest Law Center, a nonprofit based in Philadelphia.
It doesn’t matter whether the map drawers intended to discriminate, Geffen added, as long as voters of color can show their ability to have a meaningful say was diminished.
Drawing district lines based on race — also known as a racial gerrymander — is generally prohibited. However, Section 2 of the VRA has allowed race to be considered in order to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.
How does this affect Pennsylvania?
Any impact from the Supreme Court’s decision would depend on the reasoning laid out in the majority opinion.
“They could do nothing, they could issue a really fact-specific decision about what happened in Louisiana,” Geffen said.
He added that justices could also issue a decision that tweaks the law without erasing the underlying legal reasoning or historical precedent, or do something more disruptive such as finding some part of the law fundamentally unconstitutional and functionally strike down the law.
Should the court strike down Section 2, this would impact who is able to sue based on its district lines, from school board races to congressional seats. But it would be unlikely to have an immediate impact on Pennsylvania’s congressional and legislative maps, Geffen said.
Those maps were first implemented in 2022.
Multiple experts told Spotlight PA that, to their knowledge, there has never been a VRA-related lawsuit that overturned congressional or legislative maps in Pennsylvania.
Part of the reason Pennsylvania would likely see limited impact if the law is changed is the state’s demographic makeup, said Penn State University geography professor Chris Fowler. “It’s virtually impossible to draw a [congressional] district near Philadelphia that doesn’t comply with the VRA,” he told Spotlight PA.
That’s because a key part of being a VRA-sanctioned district is to have over half of the voting-age population be made up of a minority community. In Pennsylvania, the only area where that would be possible, given the size of congressional districts and the demographic makeup of the state, is the Philadelphia area, Fowler said, unless there was “extreme gerrymandering.”
He also noted that the VRA becomes more relevant with smaller districts, like legislative and municipal lines, where it’s easier to make up half of the district’s population, and as the state’s Hispanic population rapidly increases.
Geffen noted there is at least one outstanding VRA case in the Hazleton area of Luzerne County. Two voters sued the Hazleton Area School District, alleging that the way the election is conducted “dilutes the voting strength of Hispanic voters and effectively forecloses Hispanic voters from electing candidates of their choice.”
The district has defended itself, saying it has not denied anyone equal protection of the laws, and “denies that it has purposefully denied minorities equal access to the political process, or that its conduct is unconstitutional.” A similar case was filed against Hazelton’s city council election system, but was later withdrawn by the federal government.
He noted that any impact on the school district case depends on the details of the ruling.
The long-term issue, however, comes in subsequent redistricting cycles — which typically happen every 10 years.
Without Section 2, minority voters would have one less avenue to seek legal recourse if they are disenfranchised during the state’s redistricting process. In Pennsylvania, congressional maps are drawn in the same way that legislation is passed: Both chambers of the legislature pass a bill that is signed by the governor. In 2022, the state Supreme Court took over the process after the Republican-controlled legislature and Democratic governor could not agree on a map.
Legislative maps are drawn by a commission made up of four legislative leaders and a chair selected by those members, though if the members cannot agree, the state Supreme Court chooses a chair.
Marian Schneider, a senior staff attorney for the civil rights group Advancement Project, told Spotlight PA she believes voters could still use state law to fight for representation.
In particular, Schneider pointed to two parts of the Pennsylvania Constitution: the free and equal election clause, which guarantees the right to vote, and another provision that prohibits “denial or abridgment of equality of rights because of race and ethnicity.”
Schneider added that the political makeup of Pennsylvania serves as an added level of defense against district lines that dilute the power of minority communities. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have control of all three branches of government, making it harder for one party to draw legislative lines without oversight.
“What I hope that lawyers will do — lawyers like me — is to continue to advance the protections that are available under Pennsylvania's state Constitution,” Schneider said. “And I think, also, we can be creative with remedies.”