Chad Peace is a nationally recognized leader in election law, voter rights, and a legal strategist for the Independent Voter Project. On this episode of How to Win Friends and Save The Republic, Peace discuss his background, the rise of independent voters, and how that is affecting the landscape of the democracy reform movement across the country.
The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.
Background and Legal Landscape
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.
The Louisiana Case and Its Broader Context
In 2022, a federal district court found that Louisiana’s congressional map violated Section 2 by packing and cracking, essentially separating into districts, Black voters in a way that undermined their electoral influence. The court then ordered the creation of a second majority Black district, which would likely lead to another Black Democratic representative. Louisiana officials appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that redrawing maps based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court initially paused the lower court’s ruling, allowing the disputed map to remain in place for the 2022 midterms. But after a similar case from Alabama, Allen v Milligan (2023), reaffirmed Section 2 protections, the justices sent Louisiana’s case back to the lower courts for reconsideration.
However, now the Court has decided to revisit the case, this time focusing on not just the congressional map, but also on whether private citizens and civil rights groups should even be allowed to sue under Section 2. This question is pivotal; for decades, nearly all Section 2 lawsuits have been brought by private plaintiffs, rather than the Department of Justice. If the Court ruled that only the federal government could bring these lawsuits, enforcement of Section 2 would effectively stop, leaving many discriminatory maps uncontested.
Implications
The implications of Louisiana v. Callais extend far beyond Louisiana. Curtailing Section 2 would fundamentally reshape the balance of power between federal civil-rights enforcement and state election control. It would also make it significantly more difficult to challenge racially gerrymandered congressional maps in many states where rapid demographic shifts are already altering political representation. Critics of the Court’s decision to hear the case warn that weakening Section 2 could allow states to adopt maps that entrench racial disparities under the guise of race-neutral redistricting, resulting in minority communities having no way to fight systemic discrimination in elections. Proponents of the case however, argue that Section 2 gives the federal government too much control over state redistricting, forcing states to prioritize race in map drawing, undermining both race-neutral principles and state sovereignty.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s reconsideration of Louisiana v. Callais places the future of the Voting Rights Act at a crucial inflection point. Section 2 has long served as concrete legislation to help minority voters seeking fair representation when state legislatures fail to uphold equality. Now, its survival may hinge on how the justices interpret who can enforce it, and how far the federal government can go in protecting the right to vote. The Court’s decision here could determine whether voting rights enforcement remains a national guarantee, or becomes a fragmented system defined by state politics.
Shailee Sinha is a second-year undergraduate at the University of California, San Diego, majoring in Political Science with a concentration in American Politics.
Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.
The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.
Background and Legal Landscape
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.
The Louisiana Case and Its Broader Context
In 2022, a federal district court found that Louisiana’s congressional map violated Section 2 by packing and cracking, essentially separating into districts, Black voters in a way that undermined their electoral influence. The court then ordered the creation of a second majority Black district, which would likely lead to another Black Democratic representative. Louisiana officials appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that redrawing maps based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court initially paused the lower court’s ruling, allowing the disputed map to remain in place for the 2022 midterms. But after a similar case from Alabama, Allen v Milligan (2023), reaffirmed Section 2 protections, the justices sent Louisiana’s case back to the lower courts for reconsideration.
However, now the Court has decided to revisit the case, this time focusing on not just the congressional map, but also on whether private citizens and civil rights groups should even be allowed to sue under Section 2. This question is pivotal; for decades, nearly all Section 2 lawsuits have been brought by private plaintiffs, rather than the Department of Justice. If the Court ruled that only the federal government could bring these lawsuits, enforcement of Section 2 would effectively stop, leaving many discriminatory maps uncontested.
Implications
The implications of Louisiana v. Callais extend far beyond Louisiana. Curtailing Section 2 would fundamentally reshape the balance of power between federal civil-rights enforcement and state election control. It would also make it significantly more difficult to challenge racially gerrymandered congressional maps in many states where rapid demographic shifts are already altering political representation. Critics of the Court’s decision to hear the case warn that weakening Section 2 could allow states to adopt maps that entrench racial disparities under the guise of race-neutral redistricting, resulting in minority communities having no way to fight systemic discrimination in elections. Proponents of the case however, argue that Section 2 gives the federal government too much control over state redistricting, forcing states to prioritize race in map drawing, undermining both race-neutral principles and state sovereignty.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s reconsideration of Louisiana v. Callais places the future of the Voting Rights Act at a crucial inflection point. Section 2 has long served as concrete legislation to help minority voters seeking fair representation when state legislatures fail to uphold equality. Now, its survival may hinge on how the justices interpret who can enforce it, and how far the federal government can go in protecting the right to vote. The Court’s decision here could determine whether voting rights enforcement remains a national guarantee, or becomes a fragmented system defined by state politics.
Shailee Sinha is a second-year undergraduate at the University of California, San Diego, majoring in Political Science with a concentration in American Politics.
Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.
U.S. president Donald Trump delivers remarks at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D..C on Nov. 19, 2025.
I remember it well. It was Oct. 7, 2016, a Friday. That afternoon The Washington Post dropped a bombshell, the perfect October surprise, just a month before the presidential election.
Earlier in the week, Hillary Clinton had been hammering Donald Trump on the news that he may not have paid taxes for 18 years.
The vice presidential candidates, Sen. Tim Kaine and Gov. Mike Pence, had had a feisty debate at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia.
It had already been a campaign full of crazy turns and fireworks, and it was about to get even crazier.
“Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation About Women in 2005.”
In a never-heard-before recording from an “Access Hollywood” interview, Trump describes how he seduces women as a celebrity to host Billy Bush: “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything … grab ‘em by the p*ssy. You can do anything.”
It was mayhem after that. Was this the end of Trump’s candidacy? Dozens of Republican lawmakers called for him to drop out. The topic took up a considerable amount of attention at the next presidential debate, just two days later. Professional coaches, offended by Trump’s excuse that it was merely “locker room talk,” condemned the statement.
But while the tape certainly put Trump on defense, as we all know, the revelation that the Republican nominee for president admitted to sexually assaulting women did not derail his candidacy.
For those of us covering this, it was a low point. I remember sitting across from Jake Tapper at CNN, a friend and colleague and someone I admire and respect, and having to talk about this sordid, lewd, crass, gross comments, and the sordid, lewd, crass, gross man who said them.
I felt embarrassed — I couldn’t believe that this is what we were talking about. Nowhere in my journalism career did I think I’d be discussing a presidential candidate who bragged about grabbing a woman’s genitalia.
Flash forward about nine years, and it feels like we’re in a similar place, having crossed yet another unfortunate Rubicon into the moral abyss.
Two of the major story lines in politics today involve MAGA influencers with massive platforms, who are inexplicably white-washing white supremacy and pedophilia.
If you haven’t heard, Tucker Carlson has devolved into a conspiracy-theory spouting, despot-defending, neo-Nazi protecting weirdo. He recently interviewed Nick Fuentes, a self-proclaimed Hitler lover and Holocaust denier who has said some of the most vile and disgusting things I’ve ever heard any person say ever. Carlson didn’t press Nick on his hideous ideas, but instead gave him a very friendly interview where the implied takeaway was, “This neo-Nazi’s not so bad!”
The fawning conversation sparked an internecine battle on the right over whether laundering the reputations of white supremacists is a good idea. Believe it or not, many are defending it. Including the president.
Enter Megyn Kelly, another Fox News washout who’s found a new pool of paid subscribers to rile up, and using all the predictable foils: Bad Bunny, Zohran Mamdani, Michelle Obama, and Meghan Markle.
In addition to defending Carlson, she’s also — and I can’t believe I’m saying this — white-washing Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes, too, questioning whether his preference for 15-year-old girls or “barely legal types” actually made him a pedophile.
Referring to someone who was “very close to this case,” she said “Epstein, according to his individual, was not a pedophile.”
“He wasn’t into, like, 8-year-olds,” she said. “But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passer-by.”
Of course, 15 isn’t “barely legal,” it’s clearly illegal. But what point is she making in doing pedophile math other than a morally bankrupt one — that Epstein, and by extension Trump, isn’t so bad because he didn’t sexually abuse or traffic an 8-year-old girl?
The decision to protect neo-Nazis and pedophiles, just because it might benefit Trump in some way, is a precipice I never thought I’d see so-called conservatives walk up to. And yet, here they are, giddily leaping off of it.
Trump ushered in so many ugly elements, from white supremacy to rank misogyny. And the MAGA influencers who hitched their wagons to his star have to out-gross each other to prove their loyalty and keep their subscribers sufficiently radicalized.
For these unconscionable ghouls and sell-outs, nowhere is too low. Seriously, if they’re able to normalize neo-Nazis and pedophilia, what else is left?
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
colleagues at coffee break in office
Amid shifting legal and civic landscapes, Disability Rights South Dakota (DRSD) has served as the state’s federally designated Protection & Advocacy agency since 1977, defending the dignity, equality, and inclusion of people with disabilities. Under the leadership of Executive Director Cole Uecker, the organization continues to expand its reach and relevance.
Over nearly five decades, DRSD has expanded its support to individuals of all ages and abilities, offering services that range from legal representation in cases of abuse or neglect to employment counseling, voting rights advocacy, and assistive technology support.
Uecker was appointed Executive Director in 2022. He joined the DRSD team in 2015 as an Advocacy Services Representative and, in 2019, became a Staff Attorney.
Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, recently spoke with Uecker about the work DRSD leads as a stabilizing force: educating the public, empowering self-advocacy, and defending the rights of South Dakotans with disabilities.
- YouTube youtu.be
Uecker graduated from Pierre’s T.F. Riggs High School in 2000. After a four-year enlistment in the U.S. Marine Corps, he returned to school and obtained a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Black Hills University. A year later, Cole went back to school to pursue a graduate degree in Law. In 2014, he earned a Juris Doctorate from the University of South Dakota.
DRSD operates through nine federally funded programs, including the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI), Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT), and the Client Assistance Program (CAP). To learn more about these programs and DRSD, click HERE.
The Fulcrum publishes articles focused on democracy and/or civic engagement. If you have a suggestion for us to profile on the Fulcrum Democracy Forum, please email us at newsroom@fulcrum.us
