What Section 2 says
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits any voting practice or procedure that 'results in a denial or abridgement' of the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Unlike some other parts of the law, Section 2 applies nationwide and is enforced primarily through lawsuits brought by the federal government or private plaintiffs.
How it applies to district maps
Under a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Thornburg v. Gingles, plaintiffs challenging a map under Section 2 must generally show three things: that a minority group is large and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a district, that it votes cohesively, and that the majority votes as a bloc to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidates. If those conditions are met, courts weigh the 'totality of circumstances' to decide whether a map dilutes minority voting strength.
The Alabama case
Alabama is about 27% Black. After the 2020 census, the state drew a congressional map with one majority-Black district out of seven. In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the map likely violated Section 2 and ordered the state to draw a second district that was majority-Black or close to it.
Litigation over the boundaries continued. On June 3, 2026, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional map that again contained only one majority-Black district, a result that supporters of the earlier ruling said weakened its practical effect and that the state said reflected legitimate map-drawing choices.
The case for requiring majority-Black districts
Supporters argue that in places with racially polarized voting, majority-Black districts are often the only way to give Black voters a realistic opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. They point to a long history of discriminatory practices that Section 2 was written to address, and say preserving such districts is consistent with the statute's text and with decades of Supreme Court precedent.
The case against
Opponents argue that sorting voters by race, even for remedial reasons, is itself a racial classification that the Constitution generally disfavors. They contend that requiring states to draw districts around racial demographics can entrench race-based politics, conflict with traditional redistricting principles such as compactness and respect for county lines, and exceed what Section 2 was meant to require.
Why it matters in 2026
Control of the U.S. House in the November 2026 midterms is expected to turn on a small number of seats. Redistricting outcomes in several Southern states — including disputes over how many majority-Black or minority-opportunity districts the Voting Rights Act compels — are among the factors that could shape which party wins the majority.
What voters are being asked
The survey question asks whether the Voting Rights Act should require congressional maps to preserve majority-Black districts. A 'yes' aligns with the view that Section 2 should continue to compel such districts where the Gingles conditions are met. A 'no' aligns with the view that the law should not mandate race-conscious district lines, leaving more discretion to state legislatures and courts applying other redistricting criteria.