Callais and What It Means for Minnesota
On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a case addressing the use of race in congressional redistricting. The plaintiffs challenged Louisiana’s congressional map, which had been drawn to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs and held that the map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because race was used too heavily in drawing the district.
National Impact of the Decision
The effects of the decision were immediate and significant.
Louisiana halted early voting in primary elections that were already underway, an unprecedented action in recent history. Louisiana and several other Southern states, including Tennessee, Florida, and South Carolina, have moved quickly to redraw maps in ways that could eliminate Democratic congressional districts, many of which are represented by Black members of Congress.
This is possible because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which held that federal courts do not have a role in reviewing claims of partisan gerrymandering.
Taken together, Rucho and Callais mean that:
If a map is drawn primarily for partisan advantage, federal courts generally will not intervene.
If race is used too explicitly in drawing district lines, courts may strike the map down as a racial gerrymander.
State courts still retain authority to enforce state constitutions and laws governing redistricting.
In practice, legislatures may be able to draw highly partisan maps as long as they avoid overt racial bias.
Impact on Redistricting in Minnesota
The Minnesota Constitution and state law contain relatively few detailed requirements for congressional and legislative redistricting.
Since 1992, the Minnesota Supreme Court has drawn Minnesota’s congressional and legislative maps because divided state government has prevented lawmakers from agreeing on new boundaries.
Over time, the court has developed a set of principles to guide redistricting. These principles have evolved in response to federal and state legal requirements and advocacy by organizations such as the League of Women Voters of Minnesota.
In 2021, the court’s principles included a requirement to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act by ensuring that racial, ethnic, and language minority communities had an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In practice, this led to maps that created greater opportunities for historically underrepresented communities to win seats in the Minnesota Legislature.
How Callais May Affect Minnesota Redistricting
The practical effect of Callais is that state courts may be more limited in how they consider race when drawing congressional and legislative maps.
Courts may continue to rely on other criteria that support diverse representation, such as preserving communities of interest. However, the use of these criteria could be challenged if opponents argue they are being used as proxies for race.
Partisan Gerrymandering Risks
The likely effect of Callais in Minnesota mirrors what is occurring elsewhere in the country.
Political parties, through their elected representatives, are likely to create electoral maps that maximize the advantage for their party. If either political party controls all three parts of state government – the house, senate, and governor’s office – they will be able to pursue highly partisan maps to maximize their own political advantage, with little or no consideration for minority representation.
Minnesota state courts would still be able to rule on any maps. However, because Minnesota law includes few explicit guardrails against partisan gerrymandering, fair and effective representation is not guaranteed.
While state courts may still address racial bias in redistricting, their remedies will likely be limited to “race-conscious” approaches in which race may inform, but not dominate, the solution.
Impact on the Minnesota Voting Rights Act
In 2024, Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Voting Rights Act in response to the weakening of federal voting rights protections.
The Minnesota Voting Rights Act closely mirrors the federal Voting Rights Act in addressing both voter suppression and vote dilution, but it includes several important differences.
Key Differences of the Minnesota Voting Rights Act
The Minnesota Voting Rights Act:
Explicitly allows individuals and organizations to bring lawsuits.
Provides a pre-suit notice process, giving individuals and organizations an opportunity to resolve issues before litigation by addressing voting rights issues at a local level.
Focuses primarily on vote dilution in local elections rather than state or federal elections.
This private right of action is especially important because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that only the U.S. Department of Justice may sue to enforce certain provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act.
How Callais May Affect the Minnesota Voting Rights Act
The Callais decision does not affect the voter suppression provisions of the Minnesota Voting Rights Act and does not directly invalidate its vote dilution protections.
However, the decision may affect how courts address vote dilution claims in two ways:
Remedies for vote dilution must be race-neutral or only modestly race-conscious.
Any remedy for vote dilution should either avoid using race entirely or use race only as one factor, not the dominant factor. The Minnesota Voting Rights Act does not require race-specific remedies. Common solutions for local representation include:Geographic districts (wards)
Proportional representation methods such as multi-member districts or ranked choice voting.
Future challenges could target race-based claims.
Vote dilution claims are often based on racial disparities. Although Callais addressed remedies rather than the claims themselves, future litigants may argue that race-based vote dilution claims themselves are unconstitutional.
Where LWVMN Stands
For the League of Women Voters of Minnesota, this decision underscores the importance of continued voter education, advocacy, and civic engagement. It is critical to take the actions described by LWV to educate and engage voters in a way consistent with our state positions and principles.
As legal protections evolve, the League’s role remains essential:
Educating voters about changes in election law.
Monitoring redistricting and voting rights.
Advocating for fair and representative democracy.
Strengthening civic participation across Minnesota.
The League’s longstanding work in voter and civic education remains essential to promoting a civic culture in which elections serve their intended purpose: to create representative government at every level that is responsive and accountable to voters, rather than to political parties or big-money interests.
Paul Huffman, LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator
