Louisiana v. Callais, the California Voting Rights Act, and SB 1164: The State of the Law

I.    Introduction

The U.S. Supreme Court’s April 29, 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais raises significant questions about the ongoing constitutionality of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). In Callais, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana Congressional map created to comply with Section 2 of the Federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA) (Section 2). By a 6-3 vote, the Court invalidated a map which had created a second majority-Black voter district, where Louisiana previously had only one. The ruling did not explicitly strike down Section 2, but it significantly revised the standard for proving a Section 2 violation.

II.    Impact of Callais on the CVRA

This case calls into question the constitutionality of the core of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA), which parallels pre-Callais interpretations and applications of Section 2. The CVRA currently requires consideration of two factors in the local electorate – Racially Polarized Voting (RPV) and vote dilution – where race is the central factor. Because these concepts are expressly race-based, they are now therefore likely subject to strict scrutiny and constitutional vulnerability. While Callais focused on the act of drawing district maps, its holding will likely apply nearly any time race is a factor in analyzing election systems, including the establishment of at-large or by-district voting systems. 

The CVRA makes race the central factor in analyzing a potential violation, with no requirement to show intentional discrimination. This is the opposite of what Callais requires to prove Section 2 (and similar) violations: “[T]he focus of §2 must be enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination.” In contrast, the CVRA is not interested in intent, but solely in voting patterns that correlate to race. This is expressly prohibited by Callais.

Callais analyzes the issue of minority groups’ ability to elect their candidates of choice, holding that such groups must be given the opportunity to achieve a desired result, not equal outcomes. The Court states that “the ‘opportunity’ of these ‘members of the electorate’ to contribute their votes to a winning cause is whatever opportunity results from the application of the State’s combination of permissible criteria.” In other words, Callais would likely support a conclusion that the CVRA’s prohibition on vote dilution by disfavoring at-large elections as measured by the impact on minority voters is unconstitutional, because racial vote dilution – absent evidence of intentional discrimination – is not a violation of the voters’ Constitutional rights.

While Callais has not yet been applied to the CVRA, it provides a possible path for a potential challenge to the CVRA as unconstitutional. 

III.    SB 1164 and Future Legislation

The California Legislature is likely to preemptively act on these CVRA vulnerabilities. The first response may be SB 1164, or some variation thereof, which the State Senate approved and sent to the Assembly for consideration. This bill would significantly reform the CVRA into a new updated law named the California Voting Rights Act of 2026. In isolation, much of the legislation would likely pass constitutional muster, including (1) provisions regarding race-neutral prohibitions of voter suppression, discrimination against language-minority groups, and (2) liberalized standards for voter eligibility.   

However, Callais presents the following significant potential hurdles for this:  

• SB 1164 defines “protected class” as “any group of individuals who are members of any race, color, or language-minority group.” This definition is used throughout the act and is critical to the RPV analysis. This is likely prohibited under Callais.
• SB 1164 prohibits vote dilution via electoral methods having the effect or intent of depriving protected class members of electing their candidates of choice. This is likely constitutionally suspect under Callais.
• SB 1164’s set of factors used to establish the “totality of the circumstances” includes prohibited factors under Callais.
• SB 1164 states that it does not give rise to a federal question and that federal legal standards, precedent, or evidentiary frameworks may be persuasive but are not necessary. This will not immunize the act from analysis under the U.S. Constitution as outlined in Callais.

Because the Senate has already amended the act four times this year before sending it to the Assembly on May 20, 2026, there is a strong possibility that SB 1164 will be changed prior to becoming law or after a challenge under Callais. Future legal alerts will address further changes to SB 1164 as well as additional legislation. Local agencies should expect significant developments in this area in the near future.

If you have questions about the impacts of this decision, please contact Matthew “Mal” Richardson and Samuel Hall.

Disclaimer: BBK Legal Alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts, facts specific to your situation, or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information herein.