Chief Justice John Roberts has disappointed the right far more often than pleased them. Nevertheless, the Chief gave the best response to the notion that ending racial discrimination requires piling minorities into a few districts so they end up being a majority.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
(Head slap and a hearty "duh.")
Last week, the Supreme Court struck a blow for that simple declaration by ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that gerrymandering congressional districts solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) had been twisted, folded, spindled, and mutilated to the point of unrecognizability over the last 60 years. Its usefulness in modern America is rightly questioned, as the notion of "Jim Crow" and "literacy tests" is far behind us.
White people have shown they're perfectly willing to vote for minority candidates in majority-white districts, thus negating one of the primary arguments for racial gerrymandering. The number of black members of Congress representing majority-white districts has grown significantly over the last decade, particularly as candidates have seen success in competitive exurban and rural areas.
The success of representatives like Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) or Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio) proves that black candidates do not need "segregated" or specifically carved-out districts to win federal office in modern America.
The Supreme Court's Callais ruling sounds the death knell for the Democratic Party as we know it today. "Ballotpedia, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2024 American Community Survey, estimates that these racially gerrymandered districts account for 148 seats in the House of Representatives," reports The American Spectator. "This is about one third of the House’s 435 districts and 122 of them are held by Democrats — more than half of their 212 seats."
Is that why Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries lost it in an emotionally unhinged rant about the VRA?
The Democrats had long ago weaponized the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by funding pettifoggers like the Elias Law Group to convince federal courts that Section 2 of the VRA required racially gerrymandered districts wherever they could be contorted enough to make the demographic math work. Last week, the Court corrected that misinterpretation. As the opinion’s author, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, patienly explained it on page 6: “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act … was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it.” In other words, this section of the VRA explicitly prohibits “voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race.”
The effect of this ruling is that states which have gerrymandered district maps based on race will likely have to revisit and redraw those maps. The day after the Court rendered its decision the Justice Department confirmed that it will vigorously enforce the Court’s ruling on majority-minority districts in all 50 states. Just The News reported, “United States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said Thursday that the Justice Department will enforce the Supreme Court’s decision on racially gerrymandering districts in every state that has such a district.”
There are 148 target districts in 28 states, and you can bet that the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to protect each and every one. That means a long twilight struggle lasting more than a decade, as each individual case (and perhaps more than one per district) will be brought before the Supreme Court.
The ACLU responded in its own inimical way.
This decision is a profound betrayal of the legacy of the civil rights movement. By gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court has weakened the primary legal tool that voters of color rely on to challenge discriminatory maps and election systems. In practical terms, this means that even where racial discrimination in voting is clear and ongoing, communities will be left without the most significant weapon they have to stop states from drawing districts that dilute their political power. Representation for Black, Latino, Native, and other voters of color will increasingly depend on the goodwill of legislatures rather than enforceable law.
The law still requires that there not be discrimination in drawing congressional district lines. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that means exactly what it's supposed to mean, not what Democrats want it to mean. Eventually, the Democrats will have to adapt. If they want to win more elections, they are almost certainly going to have to become far less radical, especially on racial matters. This can only be good for America and for blacks, who will almost certainly see an increase in black representation in Congress.
Exclusively for our VIPs: Why Some Cats Like to Play With Some Dogs
Editor's Note: President Trump is leading America into the "Golden Age" as Democrats try desperately to stop it.
Help us continue to report on President Trump's successes. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member