Voters walk to a polling place at a school gym in New Orleans. Republicans could gain scores of state legislative seats if the U.S. Supreme Court weakens a federal voting rights law, a new analysis finds. (Photo by Stacy Revere/Getty Images)

Republicans could gain nearly 200 state legislative seats across the South if the U.S. Supreme Court guts a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, a new analysis finds.

The bulk of the gains would be concentrated in 10 GOP-controlled state legislatures in Southern states, according to the analysis, produced by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, in partnership with Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters.

The analysis, featured in a report released by the groups on Monday, underscores the alarm among progressives over the potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s looming decision in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais. While the case centers on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional map, the effects of the decision could extend into statehouses across the country.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears likely to severely weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 civil rights law that bans racial discrimination in voting access. Section 2 restricts racial gerrymandering, and until now has limited the power of lawmakers to draw districts that dilute the voting power of racial minority voters.

A sweeping decision by the court could give state lawmakers a freer hand to draw congressional and state legislative districts that dilute the power of minority voters — as well as districts for local governments, such as county commissions, city councils and school boards. The justices held oral arguments in October; a decision could come at any time.

At the state legislative level, a court ruling that strikes down Section 2 could lead to Democrats losing about 191 seats, according to the analysis, which examined how state legislative districts could be redrawn if Section 2 is no longer in place. Most of those seats are currently held by Black lawmakers in districts where minority voters make up a majority of residents.

“What that is doing is providing a fatal blow to Black representation in the South,” Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Wargo said in an interview.

The total number of state legislative districts in 10 Southern states where Black or Hispanic voters comprise a majority could fall from 342 to 202. Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Some Republican states argue that courts have interpreted Section 2’s protections too broadly and in the process wrongly restrained the ability of lawmakers to draw favorable maps.

Alabama and 13 other GOP states said in a brief filed with the Supreme Court earlier this year that Section 2 has been turned into “the proverbial golden hammer, wielded by plaintiffs and courts in a never-ending search for a nail.”

If the Supreme Court weakens the Voting Rights Act, it’s unclear whether state legislatures would pursue mid-decade redraws of state legislative districts. Redistricting typically occurs every 10 years following the census.

At the federal level, a previous analysis by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund projected Republicans could draw an additional 19 U.S. House seats if Section 2 protections were removed.

While a few states have passed new congressional maps already this year, those efforts have proven highly controversial. Some states, such as Indiana and Kansas, have abandoned or rejected them for now.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Brandon Parnell, 39, and Latoya Gaines, 40, both of Birmingham, Alabama, traveled to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday drew protests from activists and lawmakers who warned the case threatens to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and strip minority populations of the chance to elect candidates to Congress.

The Congressional Black Caucus convened a press conference on Capitol Hill just hours after the justices heard the case brought by the state of Louisiana and a group of voters who argue Section 2 of the landmark 1965 law violates the Constitution by discriminating against white voters. The section prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race.

Protesters rally at the U.S. Capitol and in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025, as justices heard a case from Louisiana challenging the Voting Rights Act. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Louisiana Democrat and member of the caucus, cautioned his state could lose two majority Black congressional districts if the court strikes down the section in question.

“Critics claim that the VRA is no longer needed, but history and data tells quite a different story,” Carter said.

“Though Black people make up one-third of the population (in the state), only five (Black) Louisianians have served in the U.S. House out of 171. That’s not equal representation. That’s a travesty. Without protections like Section 2, Black communities will lose power. Their concerns are sidelined, and our democracy is weakened.”

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat of Alabama, said she sat through the more than two hours of oral arguments in the Supreme Court Wednesday morning into afternoon.

“What was clear in the questioning of the majority on the court is that they have something in mind,” Sewell said, adding that she believes the conservative majority wants to “claw back Section 2, if not to eliminate it totally.” 

Two years ago, the justices affirmed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, finding that an Alabama congressional district map likely violated it. 

“This case is more than just about congressional maps. It’s about who we are as a nation and what we want our democracy to be. Now, I may be the first Black congresswoman from Alabama, but I damn sure won’t be the last,” Sewell said.

Earlier Wednesday, hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court before and during oral arguments. 

Nearly two dozen advocacy groups organized the rally, dubbed “Fight for Fair Maps.” Speakers included leaders from the NAACP, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Urban League and the National Council of Negro Women.

Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, invoked in her speech the names of past civil and voting rights leaders, like Ida B. Wells and Amelia Boynton Robinson.

“These black women were on the front line of the battle to secure voting rights. They understood that it was a necessary foundation for everything else, for our freedom, for our safety, for our economic security,” Graves said.

Those fighting against Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “want to make the right to vote nothing but words on a paper. They want to take away anything that feels real about our ability to have these rights,” Graves said.

Many in the crowd held signs featuring the face of the late civil rights leader and Georgia U.S. Rep. John Lewis next to the words “Protect Our Vote.”

Latoya Gaines, 40, of Birmingham, Alabama, said she traveled to Washington, D.C., “to stand in solidarity with my people.” 

“We believe in fair math,” said Gaines, as she demonstrated with the group Black Voters Matter and held a sign bearing the message “We Fight Back.”

Brandon Parnell, who also traveled from Birmingham and represented Black Voters Matter, stood alongside Gaines as they held signs toward the traffic driving by the Supreme Court.

“I’m here to fight for my voting rights because I’m a voter,” said the 39-year-old, as he waved an American flag and clasped an ACLU-sponsored sign reading “Protect People, Not Power.”

Jan Kleinman, 65, of Baltimore, Maryland, attended with fellow League of Women Voters members. 

“I grew up in a League of Women Voters household,” Kleinman said. “The vote is really powerful and shouldn’t be diluted.”

“I truly believe in fair redistricting, like districts that accurately represent a majority of their citizens. Obviously not everyone is going to always be happy with who gets elected, but the closer we can get to making more people happy, the better our democracy,” Kleinman said.