Legal commentator and retired attorney Mark Pulliam said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is likely to upend decades of redistricting law and ultimately shift congressional power by allowing states to revisit race-based districting under the Voting Rights Act.
Last week, the Court opened the door for states to redraw racially gerrymandered districts after ruling 6-3 that Louisiana’s revised congressional map, which was designed to create a second majority-black district, constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Speaking during Monday’s edition of The Michael Patrick Leahy Show, Pulliam described the case as “hugely important,” noting that its impact is already reverberating across the country.
“It is receiving a lot of hysterical criticism from the left because it is so important,” he said. “And when they squeal that loud, it’s because it’s hurting.”
At the center of the Court’s decision is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision originally intended to eliminate barriers to voting such as poll taxes and literacy tests. Pulliam explained that while the law was crucial when enacted in 1965, its interpretation changed dramatically decades later.
He pointed to the 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Thornburg v. Gingles as a key turning point.
“That was just an abomination,” Pulliam said, arguing that the Court at the time “disregarded the express statutory language” and instead imposed a framework that effectively required proportional racial representation in congressional districts.
According to Pulliam, that interpretation shaped redistricting battles for nearly 40 years.
“They were basically affirmative action for black districts,” he said, describing how courts often required states to draw maps that reflected racial demographics rather than race-neutral principles.
“The lower courts would say…that if you draw a map that disadvantages a black area, that gives them less voting power than their demographic representation, then you are violating the Voter Rights Act, which is a clear misreading, but it’s a misreading that works out very favorably for the Democrats because blacks more than any other ethnic group or racial group vote overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats,” he stressed.
Last week’s ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, signals a shift away from that approach.
Pulliam credited Alito’s strategy in assembling a majority on the Court, calling him “the mechanic” and “the technician” when it comes to navigating complex legal doctrine.
“In order to get his sixth-person majority… he had to drag over Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh,” Pulliam said. “It really required a heroic effort… to discredit Gingles [and] distinguish it enough so that these two people who had voted to keep Gingles three years ago were persuaded to join a decision that all but guts Gingles.”
Pulliam emphasized that the decision does not eliminate redistricting disputes but reframes them.
“Partisan gerrymandering is totally legal,” he noted, adding that such disputes are now largely considered political questions beyond the reach of federal courts.
He further argued the ruling could have sweeping political consequences.
“This is going to be like a wrecking ball,” Pulliam said, noting how states, including Tennessee and Alabama, revisiting their maps could shift the balance of power in Congress.
“We will find that the Republicans are going to pick up at least a dozen seats,” he added.
Beyond the political implications, Pulliam framed the decision as part of a broader constitutional correction, echoing arguments long advanced by Justice Clarence Thomas, who has maintained that the Voting Rights Act was never meant to govern how district lines are drawn.
“The drawing of maps… is not subject to Section 2,” Pulliam said, explaining that such practices differ fundamentally from barriers that prevent people from voting.
He also addressed why it took decades for the Court to revisit the issue.
“In part it was because of the fear that they would be accused of racism,” Pulliam said. “Race neutrality was considered a position that made you vulnerable.”
Now, he argued, perception is changing.
“Race neutrality has become fashionable as it should be,” Pulliam said, calling it “a core constitutional principle.”
Tune in now to The Michael Patrick Leahy Show – your AMERICA FIRST news talk!
– Watch LIVE here on X
– Watch LIVE on YouTube / Rumble / Roku / AppleTV
– Listen on Spotify
– Listen on WENO AM760 in Nashville
– Read more at @TheTNStar https://t.co/8sRz9p7O2I— Michael Patrick Leahy (@michaelpleahy) May 4, 2026
– – –
Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Kaitlin on X.
