Sparked by Nick Stephanopolous’s amicus brief, there’s been discussion on this blog about Section 2’s limits and how that might impact tomorrow’s re-argument in Callais. To help readers understand the import of this controversy with a real-world example, I want to highlight Missouri’s mid-decade congressional redistricting to illustrate Section 2’s importance and its limits.

For those unfamiliar with the Show Me State, some basic facts. Missouri is 77% White and 11.4% Black. While Missouri was a swing state a couple decades ago, it is now solidly red. However, the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas are blue enclaves at opposite ends of the State. After the 2020 Census, Missouri had eight congressional districts, and Missouri’s Republican-controlled state legislature drew a 6-2 map. But Missouri got caught up in the mid-decade redistricting wave sweeping the country, and Republicans enacted—what they hope to be—a 7-1 map. The question, then, was which of the two Democratic districts was dismantled?

District 1 is centered in St. Louis. At 46% Black, it is a Black-plurality or Black-opportunity district. District 1 is currently represented by Wes Bell, who is Black and the former progressive prosecutor of St. Louis County. By contrast, District 5 is based in Kansas City. District 5 is majority White and only 21.7% Black. It is represented by Emanuel Cleaver, who is Black and the former mayor of Kansas City.

Missouri dismantled District 5. Why? The straightforward explanation is that District 1 is protected by Section 2. District 5 is not. The Black population in Kansas City is not sufficiently large or compact to satisfy Gingles prong 1. So what does this tell us about Section 2?

For starters, Missouri’s mid-decade redistricting is a salient example of Section 2’s limits. The VRA does not perpetually protect all Democratic districts or even those represented by Black officeholders. It only protects those that satisfy the Gingles prongs, and District 5 could not satisfy the compactness requirement.

District 1 has lessons as well. District 1 is not majority-Black. Nor is the remedial district that ended up being drawn in Alabama after the Court’s 2023 decision in Milligan. Thus, Section 2 has plenty of play in the joints. The VRA does not require the mechanical creation of 50%+1 majority-minority districts.

Although District 1 is reliably blue, the general election is not the only site of democratic contestation. Indeed, District 1 has witnessed a fair amount of turnover in the Democratic Party primary in recent years. In 2020, progressive Cori Bush defeated long-serving Representative Lacy Clay. Then, in 2024, Bush was herself unseated by the more moderate Bell. Bush recently announced that she’s going to seek her seat again in 2026, setting up another primary fight. District 1 is anything but a “safe” seat within the Democratic Party.

What happens in a world without Section 2? Missouri could target District 1, creating the possibility of an 8-0 map. Somewhat unbelievably a decade ago, we could see re-re-redistricting in Missouri. In addition, Louisiana and Alabama will almost certainly redraw their maps. The Court, therefore, may exacerbate the redistricting wars rather than calm them.

Disclosure: I filed an amicus brief in support of the Robinson appellants in Louisiana v. Callais.