BREAKING: Supreme Court Drops HUGE Ruling on the Voting Rights Act

[SVPete]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Drops HUGE Ruling on the Voting Rights Act

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/04/29/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-voting-rights-act-is-here-its-huge-n4952320

The Supreme Court just handed down one of the most consequential redistricting decisions in a generation — and Democrats are not going to like it one bit.

In a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the majority held that Louisiana's congressional map — redrawn to include a second majority-black district — constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Court stopped short of striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act entirely, but it dramatically narrowed the ways in which states may use race when drawing congressional maps.
...
The ruling's immediate implications are huge. As we’ve previously reported, Republicans could potentially pick up anywhere from 12 to 19 new House seats across the South, as states seize the opportunity to redraw maps that were previously constrained by Section 2 requirements.
...
Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) had previously announced a special legislative session to redistrict his state ahead of the ruling, a sign that Republican-led states were loading the chamber before the gun went off. Now the starting pistol has fired, and others will likely follow.

Democrats have spent years leaning on majority-minority districts as a structural advantage — a way to pack reliably Democratic voters into safe seats under the cover of civil rights law, unconstitutionally expanding their majority in Congress.

Outlawing race-based districting is decades overdue. Dems' and Progs' reactions will reveal their hearts.

[SVPete]

The Race-Obsessed Left Complains When the Supreme Court Issues a Colorblind Ruling

https://hotair.com/larry-elder/2026/05/10/the-race-obsessed-left-complains-when-the-supreme-court-issues-a-colorblind-ruling-n3814758

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the recent case that restricted the use of race in designing a Louisiana congressional district.

Thomas wrote: "This Court should never have interpreted (Section) 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups 'an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.' ... By doing so, the Court led legislatures and courts to 'systematically divid(e) the country into electoral districts along racial lines.' ... 'Blacks (we)re drawn into 'black districts' and given 'black representatives'; Hispanics (we)re drawn into Hispanic districts and given 'Hispanic representatives'; and so on. That interpretation rendered (Section) 2 'repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.' ... Today's decision should largely put an end to this 'disastrous misadventure' in voting-rights jurisprudence."

Critics argue the ruling is not colorblind in effect because race-neutral districting can dilute minority voting power. But this assumes a) non-black and non-Hispanic voters would not vote for black or Hispanic candidates; and b) the interests of black and Hispanic voters can only be pursued by black and Hispanic members of Congress.

[SVPete]

No, the Supreme Court Did Not 'Gut' the Voting Rights Act

https://www.newsmax.com/michaeldorstewitz/alito-gerrymandering-race/2026/05/14/id/1256255/

The U.S. Supreme Court prompted a nationwide round of handwringing and screams of hyperbole when it released its decision in Louisiana v. Callais late last month.

The high court ruled that racial gerrymandering of congressional districts is unconstitutional.

Writing for the 6-member majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained that "the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race."

The question before the court, he said, is "whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination."
...
Section 2, [52 U.S.C. 10301] (a) provides that "No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), as provided in subsection (b)."

In short, the right to vote is granted to all citizens, regardless of race or color, as guaranteed by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution.

Democrats can’t make the case that minorities are being disenfranchised. Each of us have the same power at the polls — one person, one vote.
...
Opponents to the high court's decision instead point to subsection (b), which lists factors to consider when determining if voting rights have been denied.

Factors might include lack of minority officeholders or no minority-majority districts, an approach that Justice Clarence Thomas rejected in a concurring opinion.

He suggested that the Supreme Court "should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.'"

Thomas added that Section 2 "does not regulate districting at all."