Mississippi will move quickly to redraw its judicial district lines.

Live

Updated

April 29, 2026, 4:30 p.m. ET

Live Updates: Supreme Court Further Weakens Voting Rights Act

The court’s conservative majority said they had upheld the landmark law, as liberal justices accused them of gutting it. In striking down a Louisiana voting map as a racial gerrymander, the court opened the door for other states to redraw their maps.

Share full article

Image

A series of rulings by the justices has weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Credit...

Eric Lee for The New York Times

See more of our coverage in your search results.

Encuentra más de nuestra cobertura en los resultados de búsqueda.

Add The New York Times on Google

Agrega The New York Times en Google

Pinned

Updated

April 29, 2026, 4:30 p.m. ET

Abbie VanSickle

Nicholas Corasaniti

and

Emily Cochrane

Here’s the latest.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday

struck down

a voting map in Louisiana, and with it dealt a blow to a landmark civil rights law and opened the door for other states to redraw their congressional maps in ways that could affect elections for years to come.

It is unclear how the decision, which split 6-3 along ideological lines, will impact November’s midterm elections amid redistricting battles that have raged in multiple states, but several

are moving to draw new congressional maps in time

. The decision is likely to create new Republican districts across the South for future elections, for the presidential election in 2028 and beyond.

Florida’s legislature

approved a new Republican-friendly map

within hours of the court’s ruling, and state officials

across

the

South

signaled they would pursue changes to their maps that would take effect in time for elections in November.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority held that lawmakers had violated the law when they used race when drawing up a new majority-Black district. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said that the court had kept intact the Voting Rights Act but that Louisiana’s new district violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

The majority asserted that the

opinion

was a limited ruling that preserved a central tenet of the Voting Rights Act, but the court’s liberal wing, in dissent, argued that the justices had taken the final step to dismantle the landmark civil rights law.

Here’s what else to know:

The opinion:

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the justices were updating the 40-year-old framework that courts look to for evaluating the use of race in drawing congressional districts. Justice Elena Kagan accused the court’s conservative majority of gutting the Voting Rights Act.

Read the court’s decision here

.

Republican reaction:

The White House and other Republicans hailed the ruling, with a spokeswoman for President Trump declaring it “complete and total victory for American voters.” As officials in states across the South considered

how quickly they could

take advantage of the decision, there was little doubt that Republicans had

seized back the edge

in the nation’s redistricting battle.

Democratic reaction:

Democrats, veterans of the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court’s liberal justices viewed it as further weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark civil rights law. Martin Luther King III, the son of the slain civil rights leader, called the ruling “a moral indictment that reflects a continued retreat from the promise of equal justice.”

Political impact:

The decision will improve Republicans’ fortunes ahead of the midterm elections. How big of an advantage

depends on a variety of factors

.

New maps:

Hours after the ruling, Florida’s legislature

approved a new map

that could give Republicans as many as four new seats in the state’s congressional delegation. A

handful of other states

are expected to use the decision to

redraw their voting maps

.

Voting rights act:

What is

the Voting Rights Act of 1965

, how did it

come to be

, and why do some states have

their own versions

?

Show more

April 29, 2026, 4:21 p.m. ET

Emily Cochrane

Covering the South

Mississippi will move quickly to redraw its judicial district lines.

Image

Gov. Tate Reeves of Mississippi announced he would call a special session to address the state’s judicial maps.

Credit...

Ted Shaffrey/Associated Press

The Mississippi legislature will be among the first to act under the Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday that undermined racially drawn political maps, as lawmakers in the state capitol move to redraw elected judicial districts under the high court’s new rules.

On Friday, Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, announced he would call a special session in 21 days to address the state’s judicial maps. The redrawing of those maps had been put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision on U.S. House maps in Louisiana.

The court

found those House maps unconstitutional

on Wednesday, and Mr. Reeves said legislators would be able “to use their constitutionally recognized right to draw these” judicial districts.

The existing judicial district lines had been successfully challenged by a group of Black voters who said they diluted minority voters’ ability to elect a representative of their choice. But the legislature, which has the authority to draw districts for congressional, judicial and local elections, did not act on the judicial maps before they adjourned earlier this year.

Now Democrats in the state fear what will come out of the special session.

“The first chance our leadership gets to start testing the boundaries of Black voting power, they take it — they don’t even pretend otherwise,” said Cheikh Taylor, the chairman of the Mississippi Democratic Party. Mr. Taylor added, “today’s decision did not change their minds. It gave them permission.”

Show more

Read Supreme Court’s Ruling and Dissent on Louisiana Voting Map

The justices, split along ideological lines, found that Louisiana’s voting map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

April 29, 2026, 4:17 p.m. ET

Emily Cochrane

Covering the South

“The issue is not whether I serve another day in Congress,” said Representative Cleo Fields, whose district is at the center of today’s case. “The real issue is, will a person like me have the opportunity to serve in Congress.”

Image

Credit...

Eric Lee for The New York Times

April 29, 2026, 4:16 p.m. ET

Emily Cochrane

Covering the South

I just got off the phone with Representative Cleo Fields, whose Louisiana congressional district is at the center of this Supreme Court case. It is the second time Fields has seen his district thrown out by the nation’s highest court: It happened previously in the 1990s. “I never imagined that I would end up coming back to Congress under the same conditions that I left,” he said. “Today the pendulum is swinging more towards anti-voting rights and conservative views. But tomorrow it may, and it probably will, change.”

April 29, 2026, 3:49 p.m. ET

Laurel Rosenhall

Reporting from Sacramento

The Voting Rights Act reshaped California politics.

Image

Voters in Fresno last November. Latino voters are the majority in 16 of the state’s 52 congressional districts.

Credit...

Zaydee Sanchez for The New York Times

While the Supreme Court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act is expected to lead to significant changes in how Black voters are represented in the South, it could also affect how Latino and Asian Americans are represented in parts of the country where they comprise a large share of the electorate.

In California, the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental in building power for Latino voters. It was used to draw Latino-majority districts that have elected numerous Latino leaders since the 1970s, bringing Latinos into government systems that had previously been closed to them, from the federal level on down. Today, Latino politicians hold nearly one-third of the seats in California’s State Legislature and make up more than a quarter of its congressional delegation.

Texas, Illinois, New York and Arizona have also used the Voting Rights Act to draw Latino-majority districts, said Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

“It has really been a game changer for Latino representation,” he said.

In California, the weakening of the Voting Rights Act is unlikely to drastically change representation for Latinos, Mr. Saenz said. Latinos make up such a large share of the state’s population, 41 percent, that Latino-majority districts will still exist in California, even without race-conscious gerrymandering.

Today, Latino voters are the majority in 16 of the state’s 52 congressional districts, and 27 of 120 state legislative districts. In another eight congressional districts, they make up at least 30 percent of the population, making them large enough to influence an election, according to

an analysis

by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“I think the impact of Callais is likely to be pretty muted in California,” Mr. Saenz said, referring to the case the Supreme Court decided on Wednesday, Louisiana v. Callais.

The story could be different for Asian Americans, who make up 17 percent of California’s population, said John C. Yang, president of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, a civil rights organization.

The population has only recently become large enough to be able to use the Voting Rights Act to draw majority-Asian American districts. Today, one of California’s 120 state legislative districts is drawn to empower Asian American voters. And the group is considered influential in six of the state’s 52 congressional districts.

The Supreme Court’s decision could weaken Asian Americans’ political power just as their population growth was beginning to give them more clout.

“We are getting to a point of critical mass where we can elect a representative more of our choice, more from our community,” Mr. Yang said. “And yet that right is being taken away from us.”

One of the most significant ways the court’s decision could affect California politics is at the local level, said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

California has a state law based on the federal Voting Rights Act that has required many cities and school boards to elect representatives by neighborhood districts, instead of across the entire jurisdiction. In many communities, the state law has led to nonwhite voters electing diverse representatives to local government because campaigning in a neighborhood is less expensive than running across an entire city.

The court’s decision could open the door for lawsuits, challenging districts in places that were forced to draw them by the California Voting Rights Act, Mr. Hasen said. He said he expected that challenges could come first in Palmdale and Santa Monica, Southern California cities that were forced by litigation in recent years to change the way their leaders are elected.

“It’s impossible to overstate the significance of this decision,” Mr. Hasen said. “It’s an earthquake in American politics.”

Show more

April 29, 2026, 3:46 p.m. ET

Emily Cochrane

Covering the South

Louisiana, where today’s case originated,

faces a very short window

to redraw its congressional maps in time for the November elections.

“My lawyers are currently analyzing the opinion,” said Nancy Landry, the Louisiana secretary of state. “We are limited in what we can say at this time as this continues to be active litigation, with the case remanded for proceedings back to the Western District.”

April 29, 2026, 3:28 p.m. ET

Patricia Mazzei

Reporting from Tallahassee, Fla.

Florida approves a congressional map that could add four Republican seats.

Image

The Florida Legislature gave final approval on Wednesday to an aggressive new map of the state’s congressional districts sought by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Credit...

Eric Lee for The New York Times

The Florida Legislature gave final approval on Wednesday to

an aggressive new map

of the state’s congressional districts sought by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican. The map could give his party as many as four new seats, improving its chances of keeping control of Congress in the November midterm elections.

The votes happened hours after the Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision on the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, weakening the law. Mr. DeSantis, predicting such an outcome in recent months, used it as the main justification to redraw the state’s map, despite little interest from state lawmakers in doing so.

The redrawn districts would eliminate four Democratic-held seats — one in the Tampa area, one in the Orlando area, and two in the Fort Lauderdale area — effectively slashing the number of Democratic-leaning seats in half. Florida has 28 congressional districts; seven are held by Democrats after an eighth Democrat resigned last week.

Democrats have decried the mid-decade redistricting as a power grab by Republicans doing the bidding of President Trump, who faces sagging polling numbers as the midterms approach.

Several voting rights groups plan to challenge the map in court once Mr. DeSantis signs it into law. Their arguments are likely to center on a provision in the Florida Constitution that effectively bans partisan gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court decision found that Louisiana lawmakers had unconstitutionally relied on race when they drew a 2024 congressional map to create a majority-Black district. The decision came as Florida lawmakers were

discussing

the proposed map in Tallahassee. State senators took an hourlong break to read the decision. State representatives

raced to vote

, with the tally ending up 83-28 along party lines, Republicans in favor and Democrats against. Republicans hold supermajorities in the State House and Senate.

As the vote began, State Representative Angie Nixon, a Jacksonville Democrat who is running for U.S. Senate, protested on the House floor.

“It is out of order!” she yelled through a bullhorn. “You are violating the Constitution!”

State senators later approved the map 21-17, mostly along party lines, though four Republicans voted against it.

One of them, State Senator Jennifer Bradley of Fleming Island, south of Jacksonville, had said on Tuesday that she could not accept a central argument from the governor’s office: that the map no longer needed to comply with the state’s ban on partisan gerrymandering.

“I can’t do it,” Ms. Bradley said of supporting the map. “It’s just unconstitutional.”

The Florida Constitution effectively bans partisan gerrymandering under the Fair Districts amendments, which voters passed in 2010. But lawyers for Mr. DeSantis said that the state no longer needs to comply with those amendments, citing a Florida Supreme Court ruling last year.

In that ruling, the conservative-leaning court found that using race as a consideration in drawing maps under Fair Districts violated constitutional equal protection guarantees. The governor’s lawyers argued this week that because the court invalidated the race provision of Fair Districts, then all of its provisions, including the one banning partisan gerrymandering, should be rendered moot.

Nikki Fried, the chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, called that argument “asinine.” The court, she said in an interview, had a chance to overturn all of Fair Districts but chose not to do so.

Mr. DeSantis has appointed six of the seven justices on the Florida Supreme Court.

The governor called state lawmakers into a special redistricting session this week but did not release his proposed map until Monday, a day before the session began. That gave lawmakers extraordinarily little time to consider the map. A typical redistricting process involves months of extensive hearings and many possible maps, including some drawn by lawmakers.

On Tuesday, in committee hearings filled by dozens of voters who opposed the map, lawmakers grilled Jason Poreda, the top DeSantis aide who drew it.

He said he had started working on the map two weeks ago and did not finish until this past weekend. Mr. Poreda also acknowledged that the partisan breakdown of congressional districts was one of the factors that he considered in drawing the new map.

“Not using race, and not having to adhere to the Fair Districts Amendment, the entire suite of redistricting criteria that are available to other states I used here, including partisan data,” he said.

He called the map “race neutral,” a characterization that Democrats rejected. They pointed to how Black and Puerto Rican communities would be split into more than one district in several parts of the state, diluting their political power.

Since the map was released, congressional candidates have been declaring which new district they intend to run for. Florida holds its primaries in August.

Republican state lawmakers chose not to participate in the debate about the map before Wednesday’s votes. The Republican state senator who sponsored the bill, Don Gaetz of Crestview, in the Panhandle, said he disagreed with the governor’s aides that the ban on partisan gerrymandering should not apply, but put forward the map anyway.

Mr. Gaetz insisted that elections are unpredictable and that the map might not result in gains for his party.

“I am not persuaded that this map is necessarily beneficial to the Republican Party,” he said.

Nick Corasaniti

contributed reporting from New York.

Show more

April 29, 2026, 3:23 p.m. ET

Reid J. Epstein

Reporting from Washington

Republicans have seized back an edge in the nation’s redistricting fight.

Image

Proposed congressional districts in Florida, where state legislators moved on Wednesday to pass a new map meant to give Republicans as many as four extra U.S. House seats.

Credit...

Mike Stewart/Associated Press

Just last week, when Virginia voters

adopted a new congressional map

intended to elect Democrats in 10 of the state’s 11 U.S. House districts, it seemed that Democrats had taken the advantage in the coast-to-coast redistricting fight President Trump instigated in Texas last summer.

Things have quickly shifted back in Republicans’ favor.

Major developments in Washington and Florida mean that Republicans now appear poised to net more seats in the 2026 congressional redistricting battle, even as

the party faces a grim political environment

.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday to

further weaken the Voting Rights Act

— which will have far-reaching implications for American elections beyond the midterms — could prompt Louisiana to eliminate one or two Democratic seats. The decision came as Florida Republicans, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis,

passed a new map

meant to flip four Democratic House seats.

It remains unclear how many seats Republicans may end up gaining through redistricting. That figure will depend on whether a handful of Republican-led states rush to redraw their maps before the midterms, on potential legal challenges and on the eventual political environment in November, which could upend cartographers’ plans. But as of now, Republicans appear to have gained an edge in a handful of seats.

Here is

what has happened in each state

that has adopted or is in the process of redrawing congressional maps:

Texas

: Texas Republicans started the unusual mid-decade redistricting fight last summer after Mr. Trump applied public pressure on lawmakers to draw a new map. After a brief interlude when Democratic state legislators fled the state to deny Republicans a quorum, Republican lawmakers passed, and

Gov. Greg Abbott approved, new maps

that were meant to shift five House seats away from Democrats. Whether Republicans can claim all five depends on the party’s fortunes in November.

Missouri:

The state’s Republican-run legislature and Gov. Mike Kehoe drew new congressional districts in September that eliminated a Democratic district based in Kansas City.

North Caroli