The fate of voting rights is on the Supreme Court’s docket. Our highest court, which has been accused of being MAGA compromised, is set to publish their decision on Louisiana v. Callais, a case that tackles racial discrimination in congressional mapping.
With so much at stake, we called in an expert to break down the facts about the case, and the consequences of cutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Janai Nelson, Lead Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, sits down with Jen for an overview of the history behind the case and an explanation of the VRA’s impact on the civil and political rights of minority communities. Jen and Nelson call for renewed civic engagement and a modern civil rights movement to defend and strengthen multiracial democracy.
Janai Nelson is President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the nation’s premier civil rights law organization fighting for racial justice and equality. Nelson formerly served as Associate Director-Counsel and as a member of LDF’s litigation and policy teams. She has also served as interim director of LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute and in various other leadership capacities at LDF.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian. It is my great pleasure to welcome Janae Nelson. Janae is the president of the… No, no. There we go. Just went out of my brain. We’ll start over. Hi, this is Jen Rubin, editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian. I’m delighted to have with us Janine Nelson, who is the Lead Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, one of the most important advocates and litigators on behalf of civil rights in this country. Welcome, Janae. Thanks so much for being here.
Janai Nelson
Thank you for having me, Jen. We’ve heard a lot of talk about Calais. Not everyone knows exactly what the case is about, or what it could entail. Could you tell us just a little bit about the case that you’ve, I’m sure, been living and breathing for a very long time now? Sure. Louisiana vs. Kelly is, arguably one of the most important cases facing our democracy in this moment. It deals with congressional maps and whether they must be drawn fairly or not. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed precisely because the 15th Amendment of our Constitution, which guarantees the right to vote free from racial discrimination, really did not have any effect until this statute was passed that gave some teeth. to that congressional amendment. And the Voting Rights Act was able to change the complexion of leadership in this country by enabling districts to be drawn that allowed historically marginalized groups to elect candidates of their choice. So, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is what is In question before the court in this case, because after securing a win in this case and in a prior case at the Legal Defense Fund, we were able to get a map in Louisiana that enabled its 33% Black population to elect a candidate of its choice in a second district. And unfortunately, white voters in that second district challenged the map and said that they were being discriminated against because the map drawers considered race when they were drawing the map. And our response is, of course they considered race, because they were remeding racial discrimination. So they had to make sure that the new map was not also discriminating, and that it was curing the harm that was… that was… that was caused by the state. They also took into consideration many other factors, many traditional redistricting principles, and many political considerations, which really is what drove the map. So that’s what is before the court. The court is… deciding whether it is okay that the state of Louisiana considered race in remedying its own discrimination. And that’s really the core of the question before the court.
Jen Rubin
For years, we heard from the justices themselves, and from some of your, legal opponents that, after this Chief Justice, put a stake through the heart of Section 5, which was the requirement that, states and localities that had a history, again, remedy, a history of racial discrimination, had to pre-clear changes. After he struck that down, with a very famous dissent from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they kept telling us, don’t worry about it, you’ve got Section 2. That’s ultimately your protection against racial discrimination. What happened between then and now, and even a couple years ago, when this issue did come before the Supreme Court, and many of these justices did not strike down Section 2?
Janai Nelson
That’s right. So, we won a case, Allen v. Milligan, on nearly identical facts in the state of Alabama. Alabama was a state like Louisiana that only had one district where a sizable Black population in the state, had to rely on a very lopsided map where they could not elect more than one candidate of their choice. We argued that case before the Supreme Court, we won, and we received a decision that was authored by Chief Justice Roberts that was a very robust defense of Section 2, and that explained exactly why it protected voters against that type of discrimination and manipulation and unfair mapping. So… I can pose the question back to you and any of the listeners. What has happened since 2022? And now, fast forward to the argument that happened in 2025. The only real difference in the landscape is an election and a change in administration. And obviously, we all know that that should have no impact on how the court considers these issues. It should have no bearing on the justice’s interpretation of the law, so I can only hope that That did not influence the justices, but there is really no other explanation, and no other change in the environment to suggest that the outcome should be any different than it was in 2022.
Jen Rubin
Now, two questions for you. One… Hasn’t, the Constitution in the post-Civil War amendments given Congress the right to address these inequities? Not necessarily the courts, they’ve been tasked with it, which they did in 1965, and they renewed time and time again. And the other question I’m curious about is. this refrain of race neutrality. That may be what they believe now. That was never the intention behind these constitutional amendments. They may not like it, but the specific purpose was to remedy the, injustices and, frankly, the second-class citizenship that had been imposed upon African Americans. How did we get from there to suddenly this idea that white voters are the victims, or you can’t do anything to help, African Americans because of white people’s, Frankly, a decision that they want to have all the power in these states.
Janai Nelson
Well, that’s exactly it. We are looking at a complete bastardization of the Constitution and what it stands for. The 14th and 15th Amendments were clearly and unequivocally about race. The three Reconstruction amendments from the 13th 14th and 15th, are all about race. One ended slavery, one established birthright citizenship, equal protection, due process, all to remedy the historic subjugation, the legal subjugation of Black people in this country. And then, of course, the 15th Amendment, as we said, was specifically trained on the issue of voting. and meant to provide an unfettered right to vote to black men at the time, and eventually, the right to vote was extended to women. So there’s no question that these amendments were about race. And… Not only were they very specific in that regard, and in terms of the constitutional history. If you look at the specific provisions, it invites Congress. to create legislation. It is, you know, enforcement powers that it establishes. It says Congress can enforce these clauses by enacting legislation. And that’s where we get the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that’s where we get so many pieces of civil rights legislation that give life to the Constitution. And to suggest in this day and age that somehow the folks who ratify those amendments were hoping that it would be race neutral, or that there would be some absence of any consideration of race when they were remedying race discrimination and centuries of it. is just ludicrous, and it flies in the face of an originalist perspective, which so many justices in the majority of the court seem to hold. So it’s, you know, it’s hypocritical. It’s inconsistent with history, and it raises a serious question about the integrity of the court if they continue to read, these reconstruction amendments in this this race-neutral way, as they did in the SFFA case. I mean, let’s be really clear that they’re on a trajectory here.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Now, although some of these cases are far afield, we’ve also seen this Supreme Court really neuter Congress. It has invested the president, at least through its shadow docket. The notion that the executive branch can do all sorts of things, even though Congress has legislated, Congress had authorized money. That is a, really troublesome, trend, because what they’re doing is not only in voting rights, but in appropriations, the power of the purse. They’re saying, it doesn’t really matter what Congress has done, the president can really kind of do what he wants. Is that Part of what is going on here, this complete abdication of power to the executive, which of course, they said in their infamous decision, could not even be restrained by criminal law.
Janai Nelson
That’s right, you know, this case is concerning in any number of ways, but it is part of a trend, and that is, you know, what we’re seeing in terms of the court sort of abdicating its duty to be the branch that checks imbalances of power and overreach, and that ensures that the rule of law continues to be enforced. Now, while the president doesn’t have a direct role in redistricting, we know from what’s been happening in terms of The directive to specific states to engage in off-cycle or mid-cycle redistricting that, Trump cares very deeply about congressional districts, and we know the reason why is because Congress can hold the executive accountable, and our current Congress is not doing that. So, manipulating the lines is, in many ways, securing his own power, and pushing for maps that, marginalize or dilute the vote of people who choose and may want to hold him accountable is a way to hoard power. So, a lot of this is… All connected, and we have to… we have to call upon our judiciary to remain independent and objective. It is truly a crisis, a constitutional crisis, and a crisis of democracy if they do not respect those lines.
Jen Rubin
And among others, it’s the lower court justices that are raising this same red flag. You argue this case in front of the justices, one of the most masterful jobs, I have seen, I have heard. And what was your sense from the justices? Are they looking for any off-ramp here? Is there an off-ramp here? Do they really want to go down as the court that struck down the Voting Rights Act?
Janai Nelson
I would hope not. You know, when I was arguing, it was clear to me that there were certain justices who seemed to have their minds made up in a particular direction. I received questions that tried to suggest that, you know, any remedy for racial discrimination is discrimination itself. Which, again, I think is an absolute absurdity. But I, I have to say that if we look at the decision in Allen v. Milligan, if we look at, some of the questions that came up about whether there is a time frame for Section 2, whether it should somehow expire. I do think that the justices are trying to think through, exactly what the application of Section 2 should be. I think it’s impossible to look at the facts on the ground in Louisiana. The fact that there has never been a Black elected official statewide, you know, is… is… is… damning. It’s so damning, and it shows that in a state that is one-third Black, if a Black person cannot get elected, whether they are a Democrat or Republican or Independent, tells you that there is still racism that requires the Voting Rights Act to ensure fairness. So, I’ve got to believe that a majority of the court recognizes this reality, and whether they think Section 2 should end at some later date is a whole other question. That is one off-ramp. Of course. I believe that they should affirm the decision that they made in Allen v. Milligan, and they should reverse the lower court in this Calais case and allow the current map to stand, because we believe it is wholly lawful and the right remedy. Or they could remand it and say, you know what, we don’t like this map, but the finding of racial discrimination in this case is undisturbed. And therefore, we need some remedy, so maybe they could order the court to draw a new map, or the legislature even, to draw a new and fair map that gives Black voters their equal power. The one thing that the court really should not do, if it cares at all about its integrity and does not want to create a crisis or a further crisis of confidence, is to reject Section 2 or strike down the Voting Rights Act. That would be an abysmal stain on the court.
Jen Rubin
You know, justices like to say that they’re not influenced by public opinion, or by politics. But we have a recent example in which Justice Kavanaugh, in one of these summary, shadow docket opinions, went out of his way because there had been such blowback about his comments regarding racial profiling in California, that these were beginning to be called Kavanaugh stops. He went out of his way complete dicta, in, of course, one of these opinions which doesn’t give it, to say, oh, no, no. No, that’s not what I meant. Of course, the Fourth Amendment applies. Does that tell you anything about the Justice’s concern for how they are perceived, and how much blowback the court, the judiciary, is going to receive if they take away fundamental rights?
Janai Nelson
Yes, I think it’s clear. They should not be, you know, swayed by politics, but they should be paying attention to the will of the people, especially when it is consistent with the law, right? The law governs above all. But to, you know, in many instances, when we’re thinking about matters of equity, when we’re thinking about you know, just social mores and what… where we stand as a society. It is important that the justices remain cognizant of where the American people are on fundamental issues. And American people believe in the right to vote. They believe that the right to vote should be fair and equal and unencumbered, certainly unencumbered by race. And if the justices are to jettison the birth certificate of our multiracial democracy, which is the Voting Rights Act, that would fly in the face of public opinion. It is very clear that it is necessary to have this instrument to ensure the guarantees of the Constitution. And we’ve only had the Voting Rights Act in place for a mere 60 years. As we go into the 250th anniversary of this country, we would be, the court would be, setting this country on a path backwards by striking down Section 2, or in any way minimizing or narrowing it. And I hope that that’s not what the court wants to do.
Jen Rubin
And to be clear, before 1965, we did not have democracy in this country. We have an imperfect democracy now, but when you have a system in which a large number of people are disabled from voting, then the fundamental principle of democracy is not enforced. Many individuals, many advocates, many scholars are obviously very, very concerned. In the worst case scenario, in which they strike down, Section 2, or they do something that, is everything but striking it down. Take us through, then, what could happen in the South and the rest of the country, and not only at the federal level, this is what is so important for people to understand, at every level in which there is representational democracy at work. County boards, city councils, everything, from the, the local, board of, you know, regulators, all the way up to, congressional and, of course, state legislative seats. What would then unfold if the court comes down and says, forget Section 2, or just about everything? But, say, Section 2 is illegal.
Janai Nelson
Yes, if the Supreme Court destroys Section 2, it will lead to absolute mayhem, and as you point out, it will end our democracy. We will not be a functioning democracy. We will be a country that is governed by partisan politics. and manipulating legislators who are drawing districts to select their voters, as opposed to voters selecting their elected officials. And that is not a democracy. And as you point out, it’s not simply at the congressional level. This It affects school board elections, right, that often rely on districts. It affects city councils. It affects so many different governing bodies that will be felt acutely at the local level. And in Congress alone, we know that there have been studies, there are folks at Fair Fight and Black Voters Matter that have analyzed what the impact would be if the court were to strike down Section 2, and… I think there are approximately, you know. 27 seats in the House that could be taken away as a result of Section 2 being narrowed. And that is, that’s a significant shift, especially in the South, where the majority of Black people live, where Black people are still Barely, establishing a foothold in politics, and this would ultimately create a society where people are being governed by folks that they did not choose, who do not have their interests at heart, and who cannot be held accountable. That is a very dangerous society to be in, and it is one that we’re already deeply concerned about based on, you know, the authoritarian nature of this administration, and this would just exacerbate those concerns, and It’s hard to imagine how we can be a functioning nation without the Voting Rights Act.
Jen Rubin
And what we’re talking about is that state legislatures which are controlled by Republicans, let’s be clear who’s interested in doing this, and we’ll get in a moment to where this actually might be done by Democrats in a perverse way. But essentially, Republicans with Republican governors will go back to the existing maps for which primary races are underway as we speak. Redraw the line and say, no, you’re not voting in that primary, you’re voting in this primary. What happened to the principle that the courts were not supposed to upset the apple cart in ways that made confusion, that upset the process of choosing our representatives? That used to be a big excuse for them to not do a whole lot of things.
Janai Nelson
Absolutely, and so what you’re talking about is the Purcell principle, right? It’s not a real legal doctrine, but it is a, what I think the court would probably describe as sort of a common sense, practical principle, which is. if you are too close to an election, you don’t want to change things, because it could lead to voter confusion, and it could, you know, cause problems at the polls and in elections, generally. That’s generally a fair thought. What is… Concerning, however, is how the court has implemented that principle. It has often done so to the disadvantage of voters who have suffered discrimination or suffered harm and still have to live with that discrimination because the court has said it’s too close to election… Too close to an election to do anything about it. And by way of example, when we first won this case in Louisiana and proved that Black voters have been discriminated against, that was a clear finding. There was no question about it. But the Supreme Court said the 2022 midterm elections had to be held on a discriminatory map because it was too close to the election. Mind you. We were 9 months away from the election, from the general election. There was certainly adequate time for the state of Louisiana to remedy its racial discrimination, but the court said, no, nine months is too long, even though, you know, it’s a fairly long gestational period, but they would not allow a new map to be drawn. So it’ll be interesting to see what happens as we head to these midterm elections in 2026, and there are various cases and decisions being made, whether the court will hold that principle fairly when there are actions that discriminate against voters, or actions that, you know. empower parties. We are looking for fair application of that principle across the board, and to date, it really has been usually used against voters, who have suffered some harm at the hands of state legislators.
Jen Rubin
constitutional nerds and lawyers, are holding their breath every day there is a decision day, that Calais may be coming down. We haven’t seen it yet. When the court wants to go slowly, as it did in the infamous case granting Donald Trump, essentially, immunity from any criminal process, it can take a very long time to get out an opinion. And goodness knows it takes a long time to think through these issues. How soon, or how long could this take? And is, the group that will be dissenting, if they decide to strike down, Calais, considering how the timing might affect the implementation of Calais?
Janai Nelson
Yeah, it’s an excellent question. It’s anybody’s guess. Every day that there is the possibility of the decision dropping, you know, we are… we have our eyes peeled on Supreme Court.gov to see what might happen. We’ve been waiting for justice in this case for well over a year. What’s really another fascinating tidbit about this is that we argued this case last March. We argued this very case, the facts were exactly the same, and instead of getting a decision in June, which is the end of the Supreme Court’s term, when they typically issue decisions of this magnitude, they said they were holding this over for re-argument, which is why we had to re-argue it in October. So, we know that, the court has had a lot of information in front of it for quite some time. I’m hoping that the reason we haven’t gotten a decision is because the court is really grappling with these issues of significant importance. and depending on when they issue the decision, we’ll know whether there’s ample time to act on whatever the particular directive is. My hope is that they, as I said, reverse and They allow the current map to stay in place, and they reaffirm their commitment to Section 2 and to our multiracial democracy. And then there’ll be nothing left to do but to get voters to the polls in November to vote on a fair map.
Jen Rubin
The American people have become very despondent and very critical of this Supreme Court for very obvious reasons. It appears to be, the fix is in in many of these cases, or as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson so beautifully put it, we’re at Calvin Ball, which is, whatever the rules are, they’re going to be changed, to come out in a way that the, Trump regime, favors. make these arguments at the Supreme Court, do the justices seem like they’re on the up and up, like they’re really considering these cases? I mean, some of us find it hard to believe that you can make an argument that is so indisputable. If you look at the history of the 14th and 15th Amendment, and come up with some explanation or argument that would defeat the position that you’re explaining to them. What goes on there, do you think? And, should we really lose all faith that these folks are trying to play it straight?
Janai Nelson
You know, there are many different opinions on the weight of an oral argument in any forum, and especially before the Supreme Court, you know, whether it actually can tip the scales in one direction or the other. I believe it can. I really do. I do believe that If for no other reason, it provides a public record of what the justices heard And so, there is a degree of accountability there. The entire public that might be interested in these issues have has heard the same things that the justices heard. And so, the justices need to be able to issue a decision that makes sense, based on what we all know they understood, the questions that they asked, the answers that they received. And I think that that provides a measure of accountability that is very important. Do I believe that some of the justices came into the chamber, perhaps, you know, with their minds made up? Yes, I’m sure that is the case. But I have to believe that there’s still some integrity left on the court where The justices will do what is right, and what they are bound to do under the principle of stare decisis, what they’re bound to do in terms of enforcing the constitutional amendments. And recognizing and respecting Congress’s authority here. So, there are so many principles that weigh strongly in our favor that I have to believe the outcome will be just and correct.
Jen Rubin
Well, you’ve given the perfect argument for why the shadow docket is such a abomination, because they’re not forced to hear that full argument. They’re not forced to go on the record, they’re not forced to explain themselves. That seems to me to be the essence of a court, rather than a legislature, which really doesn’t have to explain itself, let alone a president. That seems to be the fundamental things that judges are supposed to do. Let me close with, this question. In 1965, there was a massive public civil rights movement underway, and as you point out, on Edmund Pettus Bridge, there were those horrific images of Bloody Sunday, and then LBJ came to Congress and, issued those famous words, which were the mantra of the Civil Rights Movement, we shall overcome. Is this country prepared to fight now the way they did then, if in fact, the Supreme Court wants to take us back? roll us back to the day before that LBJ speech on Congress. Are we prepared as Americans to fight for this democracy and to launch a new civil rights movement?
Janai Nelson
I think we’re getting there. I think we’re getting there. I don’t… often you don’t know what you are losing until it is gone or it’s vanishing. And I think right now, Americans are waking up to the fundamental freedoms and rights and protections that we have long taken for granted. that seem to, be relics of the past that we thought were permanent and that we would never have to fight for again. I think this moment is putting into stark relief that every generation, as Coretta Scott King reminded us, every generation has to earn and keep its freedoms and pass it on to the next. Thurgood Marshall, who founded the Legal Defense Fund, said, this is our democracy, make it, protect it, pass it on. We are in a moment where we have an opportunity not only to protect it, but to remake it, to make it one that functions and includes everyone. And that is the charge I hope that we will take up as Americans. I think that is the most patriotic thing we could possibly do.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely, and of course, folks, Janae is sitting in the seat, not physically, but metaphorically, that Thorogood Marshall sat in as he constructed the entire litigation strategy for achieving civil rights. And, that is the organization that had brought us to, real democracy. So, perhaps, in that regard, history will repeat itself, and there’ll be a new chapter written about the preservation of democracy with your contribution. We certainly hope so, and I think people have to understand just how critical an inflection point we’re at. And it’s easy to get numbed, easy to get, distracted by other things, but this is about do we want a democracy? Do we have a democracy? So thank you, Janae, for your incredible work, your incredible advocacy. Folks, you’re listening, as you probably gathered, to one of the premier experts on civil rights and voting rights act. legislation, so we’re very, very grateful you spent some time with us. Thanks so much, and, good luck, and I would say that to our democracy as well. Good luck.
Janai Nelson
Thank you, Jen. Appreciate it.
