On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 6-3 opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, a landmark, anti-democracy case that undermines Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Though the court stopped shy of fully overturning Section 2, Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion makes it incredibly difficult for voters of color to bring VRA claims when states engage in racial gerrymandering. Specifically, Justice Alito heightened the burden on plaintiffs looking to bring gerrymandering claims, requiring them to, among other things, prove intentional discrimination—a very high bar to meet.
Despite the fact that many legal commentators viewed Callais as all but decided given the conservative justices’ hostility toward voting rights, the decision has sent shockwaves through the legal community. After the Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the VRA in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, Section 2 was the last means of enforcing the so-called crown jewel of the nation’s pro-democracy laws: the Voting Rights Act.
Callais decisions will disrupt this year’s elections
Supreme Court Rule 45.3 provides the standard practice of waiting 32 days before effectuating a ruling and sending it to the lower courts for enforcement. In this case, the right-wing justices ignored their own rules by granting Louisiana’s request to finalize the opinion in Callais on May 4, 2026—less than a week after the case was decided.
This came just a few short days after Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) announced that he was suspending the May 16, 2026, primary election by declaring an “emergency” to allow the legislature to completely redraw the congressional legislative map. As of May 4, 2026, when the Supreme Court issued its decision effectuating the ruling, more than 100,000 Louisiana voters had cast early votes in those very primaries. And it is reported that 42,000 voters had submitted their absentee ballots before Gov. Landry suspended the election.
The high court’s decision to step in—rather than wait the proscribed 32 days—will allow Louisiana Republicans to immediately draw new maps designed to favor Republicans in a highly competitive and highly consequential congressional election year. Such intervention is entirely unprecedented and reeks of politics. To adopt Chief Justice Roberts oft-cited quote, this Callais debacle is less “call[ing] balls and strikes” than it is implementing a preferred policy agenda.
The court is inconsistently applying ‘bedrock’ Purcell principle
Both of the above decisions beg one, central question: What about the Purcell principle?
For two decades, federal courts across the country—and the Supreme Court—have adhered to Purcell, which holds that courts should decline to implement last-minute changes to elections as a means of avoiding voter confusion. For example, Purcell has been used as the reason a court does not change electoral maps in October, because many people may have already sent in their ballots and a court intervening to say “these ballots count, these ballots do not” could cause chaos. This goes far beyond merely undermining the Supreme Court’s own Purcell principle; Callais and the court’s May 4 decision effectively permit massive changes to elections while an election is ongoing. Indeed, it is now glaringly evident that the Supreme Court’s use of Purcell may not just be inconsistent but also raise serious questions about whether the majority is trying to put its thumb on the scale for partisan purposes.
The conservative justices often invoke Purcell—which Justice Brett Kavanaugh deems a “bedrock tenet of election law”—to stop election changes that they seemingly dislike; yet they completely disregard the principle when they want the election change to go ahead. For example, in 2022, this court reinstated Alabama’s unconstitutional congressional map months before an election—requiring it to be used that year—despite going on to affirm the lower court’s decision and requiring the state to use different maps for the 2024 elections.
Distressingly, the day after the court expedited the Callais judgment, Alabama filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court requesting to reinstate the maps that were struck down in Allen v. Milligan. The Alabama Legislature also advanced a bill permitting the state to hold a second round of primaries in the summer—following the May 19, 2026, primary—that would supersede the May elections for four newly constructed congressional districts, a move that would cause significant confusion to the administration of elections and the state’s millions of voters. Certainly, the court should apply the Purcell principle to these actions, but the outcome is uncertain given the justices’ recent decisions.
Purcell is not cited once in Callais, even though the opinion has caused Louisiana to suspend its ongoing primary and other states to rapidly begin drawing entirely new congressional districting maps months after candidate filing deadlines have closed. This inconsistency in application is deeply frustrating; as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted in her dissent, many Louisianans have already cast their primary vote, but the court invoked the Purcell principle “only five months ago to chide a federal district court for ‘improperly inserting itself into an active primary campaign.’”
Conclusion
What this order and opinion make clear is that the days of reasoned, consistent judicial interpretation from the Supreme Court are long gone. Put simply, precedent has given way to the exercise of power, potentially for partisan ends. This is a court that seems to consider itself a Congress, jumping in to rewrite federal laws such as the VRA and to insert itself in the election administration process. Americans should be deeply concerned by an unelected body taking such drastic steps to interfere with the administration of elections, particularly when those steps are inconsistent and disproportionately privilege one party over another.