JACKSON, Miss. – Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has declared his intention to summon a special legislative session to address judicial redistricting, contingent upon the forthcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on a pivotal Voting Rights Act case. This decision is anticipated to have significant ramifications for minority representation across the United States.

During the previous fall, the Supreme Court engaged in oral arguments regarding the potential invalidation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a crucial provision historically utilized to combat racially biased electoral practices. The case at hand is Louisiana v. Callais, with a verdict expected before the conclusion of the court’s term in June.

Should Section 2 be struck down, it would empower state legislatures and local governments to redraw electoral maps, potentially hindering minority voters from contesting maps that diminish their electoral influence. Such a development could facilitate Republican gains in the U.S. House by dissolving Democratic-leaning districts predominantly composed of Black or Latino populations, particularly in the Southern states. However, these changes would likely not be implemented in time for the upcoming midterm elections.

Governor Reeves’ proclamation, signed the previous Thursday, pertains to a specific judicial districts issue involving the Mississippi Supreme Court. Last August, a federal judge mandated the redrawing of Mississippi’s Supreme Court electoral map, citing a violation of Section 2 due to its dilution of Black voters’ power.

In his declaration, Reeves argued that the absence of a ruling in the Louisiana case has deprived the Mississippi Legislature of its “undisputed federally recognized right” to address the Section 2 violation.

Expressing his hopes on social media, Governor Reeves stated his expectation that the Supreme Court would uphold the foundational principle of equality among all Americans. The special legislative session is slated to be convened 21 days following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Louisiana case.