Louisiana v. Callais and the Future of Redistricting

In this interview, ALEC’s Process and Procedures Task Force Director Katherine T. Bennett sits down with Jason Snead, Executive Director of the Honest Elections Project and Co‑Chair of the Process and Procedures Task Force, and Adam Kincaid, Executive Director of the American Redistricting Project. They walk through what happened in Louisiana v. Callais and why the ruling matters for anyone involved in drawing or defending maps at the state level.

Bennett opens by asking Kincaid to tell the story of the case. He describes years of litigation over Louisiana’s congressional map, pressure to add a second majority‑black district, and a special session that produced a map the Supreme Court ultimately viewed as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Kincaid explains that the Court focused on whether Louisiana intentionally created that second majority‑minority seat and concluded that such race‑driven line‑drawing was inconsistent with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. He also notes that the decision re‑centers the role of intent in redistricting law and requires challengers to separate race from politics when they bring claims.

From there, the conversation moves from case history to broader principles. Snead emphasizes that both the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are meant to end racial discrimination, not build it into maps or guarantee particular partisan outcomes. In his view, Callais is an opportunity to reset redistricting around the ideas the Process and Procedures Task Force has already highlighted, including fairness, transparency, accountability, and respect for the rule of law. He suggests that the ruling gives states greater clarity than they have had in years and that the focus should return to following clear constitutional standards rather than chasing short‑term political wins.

Kincaid then discusses what this looks like in practice for legislators and map‑drawers. He argues that many recent cases have been partisan disputes presented as racial claims and that the Court’s approach in Callais makes that strategy harder by raising the bar for proving racial intent. His advice is straightforward. Treat race and politics as separate questions, be explicit about the criteria and goals you use when drawing maps and strongly consider drawing maps without relying on racial data, while handling any legal compliance checks with counsel or outside experts.

The interview closes with a theme every redistricting or elections committee will recognize: that process matters. Snead and Kincaid urge lawmakers considering map adjustments ahead of the 2030 census cycle to tighten their rules, document their reasons, and keep constitutional guardrails front and center, not only to navigate litigation more effectively but also to maintain the legitimacy of the system in the eyes of voters.