Matthew Richardson is a partner at Best Best & Krieger LLP. He can be reached at matthew.richardson@bbklaw.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a high-profile gerrymandering case this year has raised significant questions about city council elections in California. Over 200 public agencies have transitioned to district-based elections under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), often under the threat of litigation. But Louisiana v. Callais could significantly alter the CVRA and whether cities must transition away from at-large elections.

In Callais, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map created to comply with Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. This section is intended to give racial or language minority communities an equal chance to elect representatives or meaningfully participate in elections. However, the ruling didn’t strike down Section 2. Rather, it significantly revised the standard for proving a Section 2 violation. The court generally held that when the government takes race into consideration in the redistricting context, “it engages in racial stereotyping at odds with equal protection mandates.”

To put it simply: Race may not be considered by decision-makers in the districting context unless there is evidence of present-day intentional discrimination.

The ruling calls into question the constitutionality of the California Voting Rights Act, which parallels pre-Callais interpretations and applications of Section 2. The ruling will likely apply nearly any time race is a factor in analyzing election systems — including establishing at-large or by-district voting systems.

Local agencies should pay attention to two instances where race is the central factor: racially polarized voting and vote dilution. Racially polarized voting refers to when voters of different racial or ethnic groups consistently support different candidates. Vote dilution is when an election system reduces the ability of a minority community’s votes to translate into representation. Because these concepts are expressly race-based, they are now likely subject to strict scrutiny and constitutional vulnerability.

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. The CVRA isn’t interested in intent, but rather voting patterns that correlate to race. Callais holds that minority groups must be given the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, not equal outcomes. Future federal court decisions that rely on Callais may conclude that the CVRA’s prohibition on vote dilution by disfavoring at-large elections as measured by the impact on minority voters is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how the California Legislature responds to Callais, it is clear that race may no longer be a factor in election laws. However, Callais does lay the groundwork for a successful challenge to the CVRA, which could eliminate the current need for cities to transition to district elections due to allegations of racially polarized voting and vote dilution. Local agencies should expect significant developments, including litigation challenging the CVRA and changes to state voting laws from the state Legislature.