{
"$type": "site.standard.document",
"bskyPostRef": {
"cid": "bafyreibrn43d5jcciqbcg2eg5m4zp6rcj7zskcbto6me43ygai644updza",
"uri": "at://did:plc:ornsbtmaufp6dx4zecjdtoon/app.bsky.feed.post/3mknjzz7t3xf2"
},
"coverImage": {
"$type": "blob",
"ref": {
"$link": "bafkreihdbsf3idjq7zsbuqzdgcggxkedtqce47c3lpj5me7ap3qttfkrxa"
},
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"size": 102254
},
"path": "/post/26064000",
"publishedAt": "2026-04-29T15:34:39.000Z",
"site": "https://beehaw.org",
"tags": [
"U.S. News",
"Powderhorn",
"usnews",
"0 comments",
"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-case-ruling"
],
"textContent": "submitted by Powderhorn to usnews\n13 points | 0 comments\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-case-ruling\n\n> The US supreme court has ruled that Louisiana will have to redraw its congressional map, in a landmark decision that effectively guts a major section of the Voting Rights Act.\n>\n> In a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, the court rendered ineffective section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last remaining powerful provision of the 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting. Section 2 specifically has long been used to ensure minority voters are treated fairly in redistricting\n>\n> “Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, wrote for the majority opinion. “Compliance with section 2 thus could not justify the state’s use of race-based redistricting here. The state’s attempt to satisfy the Middle District’s ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”\n>\n> In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court had now accomplished a “demolition of the Voting Rights Act”.",
"title": "US supreme court ‘demolishes’ key Voting Rights Act provision that prevented racial discrimination"
}