US Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana's Congressional Map in Major Voting Rights Ruling - Tl;dr racial gerrymandering bad, Democrats could lose many black-majority free seats in Congress

Destacado
Article / Archive

By Joe Cunningham | 10:21 AM on April 29, 2026

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

77326c09-c7c4-4e17-9020-6b6305c231e0-1052x615.jpg
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana's congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais, finding that the state's second majority-Black district violated the Equal Protection Clause.

In the 6-3 decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The court held that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to draw a second majority-minority district. Without that requirement, the state had no compelling reason to use race in drawing its lines.

SB8, enacted in 2024, created a District 6 stretching roughly 250 miles from Shreveport through Alexandria and Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Louisiana drew the district after a federal judge in Robinson v. Ardoin found the previous map likely violated Section 2.

No compelling interest justified that race-conscious decision, Alito wrote, because Section 2 had not actually required Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district in the first place. The Robinson plaintiffs, he wrote, had failed at every step of the updated test. Their illustrative maps would have placed Rep. Julia Letlow in a district with more than twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, effectively ending her career in Congress.

Their racial polarization analysis did not control for partisan preference. And their totality-of-circumstances showing leaned heavily on the "sordid history" of pre-Voting Rights Act discrimination rather than current conditions. Alito wrote that the Voting Rights Act "is not designed to punish for the past" but "works to ensure a better future," quoting the Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She wrote that the decision guts Section 2 by reviving the intent standard Congress rejected in 1982.
 
Presiona para expandir...
The republicans will likely pick up around 15-19 seats in the house through this decision. But for Trump's stupid war in Iran, they could probably have held the house this fall.

The reserved racial congressional seats have been backstopping the democrats in the house of representatives for a couple decades now. Its also going to dramatically reduce the power of the black congressional caucus in the house and within the democratic party.

This is a major win.
 
I am dubious on whether this will actually result in meaningful changes. Progressive states have already proven themselves more than happy to ignore Supreme Court rulings on other topics, such as firearms, so I see no reason why they wouldn't ignore these as well. The federal government, especially Trump's federal government, has shown an overwhelming refusal to enforce the law onto progressives in any meaningful capacity, and I do not see that changing here.

I would like to be wrong, but this is a prime case of the courts making their decision, but nobody being around to enforce it.
 
Strix454 dijo:
The republicans will likely pick up around 15-19 seats in the house through this decision. But for Trump's stupid war in Iran, they could probably have held the house this fall.

The reserved racial congressional seats have been backstopping the democrats in the house of representatives for a couple decades now. Its also going to dramatically reduce the power of the black congressional caucus in the house and within the democratic party.

This is a major win.
Presiona para expandir...
Actually, reading the decision, its not that good for Republicans. It bans racial considerations in building a district but the wording of that likely still prevents cracking. So while states won't be required to niggermax they will also still be prevented from cracking naturally occuring concentrations of black people such as the city of New Orleans.
 
Fount of BadSpeak dijo:
I am dubious on whether this will actually result in meaningful changes. Progressive states have already proven themselves more than happy to ignore Supreme Court rulings on other topics, such as firearms, so I see no reason why they wouldn't ignore these as well. The federal government, especially Trump's federal government, has shown an overwhelming refusal to enforce the law onto progressives in any meaningful capacity, and I do not see that changing here.

I would like to be wrong, but this is a prime case of the courts making their decision, but nobody being around to enforce it.
Presiona para expandir...

This has nothing to do with progressive states. This decision is about the court-forced creation of black house seats in conservative states which has been going on for years.
 
Fount of BadSpeak dijo:
I am dubious on whether this will actually result in meaningful changes. Progressive states have already proven themselves more than happy to ignore Supreme Court rulings on other topics, such as firearms, so I see no reason why they wouldn't ignore these as well. The federal government, especially Trump's federal government, has shown an overwhelming refusal to enforce the law onto progressives in any meaningful capacity, and I do not see that changing here.

I would like to be wrong, but this is a prime case of the courts making their decision, but nobody being around to enforce it.
Presiona para expandir...
This ruling is projected to have the most impact in the red states of the South (starting with Louisiana of course), not ones like Cali. Until now said states had been forced by law (said VRA) to draw racially gerrymandered seats that inflate the black (90%+ Democrat voting) vote & are thus guaranteed Democrat pickups for decades because, Idk, the KKK stopped some niggos from voting 100 years ago and the good ol' boys owed them political reparations (regardless of their actual partisan political allegiances now and that of said Klan then) or something. Those states can now greatly reduce or even, in actually quite a few cases, eliminate said seats which really have no business existing.

south-seats.png

The real :optimistic: part is hoping that the state GOPs have the balls to use their newfound freedom to make the above map a reality. But if any state-level Republican Party can be expected to still truly keep the buckbreaking spirit of their massa ancestors alive, surely you would think it's got to be the ones in the Deep South.
 
Chuckwagon dijo:
The real :optimistic: part is hoping that the state GOPs have the balls to use their newfound freedom to make the above map a reality. But if any state-level Republican Party can be expected to still truly keep the buckbreaking spirit of their massa ancestors alive, surely you would think it's got to be the ones in the Deep South.
Presiona para expandir...

The tricky part politically is that you have to re-draw very safe republican house seats in certain states and make them less safe. These voters don't disappear. They get spread out to other congressional districts.
 
Fount of BadSpeak dijo:
I am dubious on whether this will actually result in meaningful changes. Progressive states have already proven themselves more than happy to ignore Supreme Court rulings on other topics, such as firearms, so I see no reason why they wouldn't ignore these as well. The federal government, especially Trump's federal government, has shown an overwhelming refusal to enforce the law onto progressives in any meaningful capacity, and I do not see that changing here.

I would like to be wrong, but this is a prime case of the courts making their decision, but nobody being around to enforce it.
Presiona para expandir...
To be fair, it's the "purple"/swing states where this really matters.

Also leaving these things to the states is, from a neutral standpoint, arguably better than federal enforced "you must crack".

The issue Dems were using VRA to tell states that you NEED a strong black district.
 
whatever I feel like dijo:
Actually, reading the decision, its not that good for Republicans. It bans racial considerations in building a district but the wording of that likely still prevents cracking. So while states won't be required to niggermax they will also still be prevented from cracking naturally occuring concentrations of black people such as the city of New Orleans.
Presiona para expandir...
I honestly don't think it's going far enough, especially given demographic challenges. I've long been a proponent of taking the entire Mississippi River delta and down south through New Orleans and creating an entire separate state out of that region specifically for black people to move to govern themselves at a state level. I would even contribute to a fund for them to move to such a state. They get a big check from this fund, but they have to actually live there. It's a win-win for everyone, and this area is already largely majority black. The remaining southern states rocket up the rankings in living standard metrics, they don't have to worry about their house seats, and blacks get a refuge to govern themselves free from the effects of evil racists destroying their communities. We'll call it 'New Liberia' or 'Kingsland' You'd give the dems 2 more senate seats, but in places like Georgia and North Carolina you'd probably get those back if you could get enough people to move there.

Of course we would need a way to prevent them from moving back to their home states when it inevitably collapses in 10 years,

Alternatively maybe we pay for them to be sent to Canada? With the framing that Canada is less racist and has more free gibs (healthcare). What's Canada gonna say? No? Well, that would just be racist of them to decline oppressed minority refugees from the U.S.... In fact maybe we do it with France and Germany too since they like to posture about how welcoming and inclusive they are and about how they need more migrants and have such a high standard of living. Why not work out a deal? That way we could bypass this redistricting issue entirely, which is really just kicking the can down the road.
 
Fanatical Pragmatist dijo:
To be fair, it's the "purple"/swing states where this really matters.

Also leaving these things to the states is, from a neutral standpoint, arguably better than federal enforced "you must crack".

The issue Dems were using VRA to tell states that you NEED a strong black district.
Presiona para expandir...
How will it matter? I highly doubt Republicans are going to do anything to enforce this SCOTUS decision any more than they have other decisions that were directly contrary to progressive goals. I have no idea why people think I should expect Republicans to do anything here when they have already proven an overwhelming unwillingness to ever push their advantage, even when the courts back them.
 
Ahaha holy shiiiiittt YEEESSSS

The coping and SEETHING from Dems asshurt that their racial gerrymandering is going away is beautiful.
 
Okay bets on how @Fatpacks turns doomer on this:

I am going with:

“Too little too late guys. Besides all this does is release a bunch of niggers into white districts to convince RINO constituents to listen to them so now the GOPe will have to cater to our Black Overlords. 95% of Conservatives are normies not chuds, they don’t want Total Nigger Death, they still think the 80s delusion of the multicultural melting pot diversity brown America Peaceful Utopia is possible, just that liberals went insane. Most of the GOP will gladly keep the districts and laws the same because they aren’t Chuds, they ‘just wanna grill’ and grift and cuck. This is a Pyrrhic victory to make the sheep bah in glee while they continue down the line to the slaughterhouse.”
 
Fount of BadSpeak dijo:
I am dubious on whether this will actually result in meaningful changes. Progressive states have already proven themselves more than happy to ignore Supreme Court rulings on other topics, such as firearms, so I see no reason why they wouldn't ignore these as well.
Presiona para expandir...
Prog states don't tend to use DEI districts to gerrymander. Most of New England is 55/45 to 60/40 D:R, so they simply draw creative lines to disperse the 40-45% Rs into having zero seats.

Then they demanded that Red states consolidate (D) constituencies into Affirmative Action seats. So (D)s are overrepresented in both conservative and progressive states. Now, if conservatives finally realize politics is no longer a debate club, they can at least purge ghetto districts from the southeast, making it as solid as New England.
 
Tennessee Trash dijo:
I've long been a proponent of taking the entire Mississippi River delta and down south through New Orleans and creating an entire separate state out of that region specifically for black people to move to govern themselves at a state level.
Presiona para expandir...
I like this idea in general but I wouldn't squander any strategically significant waterways or industrial centers by handing them over to niggers. There's tons of industry between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that would be wasted on them. They need more of a wildlife refuge setting where they can dwell in villages of no more than 150 inhabitants, where they can hunt and gather as nature intended.
 
Fount of BadSpeak dijo:
How will it matter? I highly doubt Republicans are going to do anything to enforce this SCOTUS decision any more than they have other decisions that were directly contrary to progressive goals. I have no idea why people think I should expect Republicans to do anything here when they have already proven an overwhelming unwillingness to ever push their advantage, even when the courts back them.
Presiona para expandir...
If the democrats are serious about punishing conservatives (I bet they are) that would be some real motivation to jump on this opportunity to save their own ass
 
Chuckwagon dijo:
This ruling is projected to have the most impact in the red states of the South (starting with Louisiana of course), not ones like Cali. Until now said states had been forced by law (said VRA) to draw racially gerrymandered seats that inflate the black (90%+ Democrat voting) vote & are thus guaranteed Democrat pickups for decades because, Idk, the KKK stopped some niggos from voting 100 years ago and the good ol' boys owed them political reparations (regardless of their actual partisan political allegiances now and that of said Klan then) or something. Those states can now greatly reduce or even, in actually quite a few cases, eliminate said seats which really have no business existing.

Ver archivo adjunto 8931010

The real :optimistic: part is hoping that the state GOPs have the balls to use their newfound freedom to make the above map a reality. But if any state-level Republican Party can be expected to still truly keep the buckbreaking spirit of their massa ancestors alive, surely you would think it's got to be the ones in the Deep South.
Presiona para expandir...
Your map shows a scenario where Section 2 was struck down but it wasn't. Republicans still won't be able to crack black cities.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo