Bye-bye, congressional ghettos

The left is running scared. The Supreme Court heard arguments in Louisiana v. Callais on Wednesday. It was a re-argument of the case as justices heard oral arguments earlier on March 15.

The question is whether Louisiana may herd black voters into two congressional districts and have whites own the four remaining districts.

Incredibly, Democrats created this segregation of voters 60 years ago in the Orwellian named Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld and enforced this separate-but-equal treatment of black and later, Hispanic, voters.

That may soon end.

The New York Times reported:

While state laws restricting gerrymandering have mostly been enacted by Democrats in blue and purple states, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is the main legal limitation on gerrymandering in many red states, particularly in the South. It bans voting practices that discriminate based on race, which has been interpreted to require the creation of majority-minority districts in areas with racially polarized voting and where minority groups represent a majority of the population.

Without Section 2, many Republican state legislatures would be free to eliminate majority-minority congressional districts, which mostly vote Democrat.

Republicans stand to lose because now one-fourth of Democrat votes are concentrated in little ghettos.

But the Constitution does not allow shoving voters into electoral ghettos. After 60 years, the Supreme Court finally may end this discrimination.

NYT said:

Outside the courtroom, after the arguments had concluded, the crowd of protesters included more than 100 people. A loudspeaker blasted Freedom by Beyoncé and the crowd chanted “fight! fight! fight!” A majority of them were wearing black T-shirts reading “Black Voters Matter” and “It’s About Us.”

Representative Troy Carter, one of two black lawmakers representing Louisiana in the House, put out a statement after the arguments. “The creation of a second majority-minority district was not about race; it’s about fairness, compliance with federal law, and ensuring that Black voices in Louisiana are not silenced,” he said. “The current map is the product of bipartisan compromise, legislative action, and judicial review.”

Carter is a man who got his job not because of the content of his character but by the color of his skin. He does not want to compete in an integrated election.

AP tried to carry Democrat water:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared ready to gut a key tool of the Voting Rights Act that has helped root out racial discrimination in voting for more than a half century, a change that would boost Republican electoral prospects, particularly across the South.

What discrimination? If you are a black Republican in Dallas, you are stuck with Jasmine Crockett as your congresswoman. Her politics are not the problem. Her cosplaying a ghetto girl when she was reared in middle class suburbia is.

She was a reminder as I wrote this last night to put the bin out because Thursday is trash day in Poca.

Ending separate-but-equal districting is a major case that will decide whether the government will slide down the socialist bannister as Crockett and company push the Democrat Party so far left they give Chairman Xi pause.

AP noted the seriousness of the situation, reporting, “During 2 1/2 hours of arguments, the court’s six conservative justices seemed inclined to effectively strike down a black majority congressional district in Louisiana because it relied too heavily on race.”

The 1965 law set a racial quota for black congressmen. The law has been a shuttlecock in the courts throughout this decade.

Axios New Orleans’ summary of this case was excellent.

Civil rights groups sued the state, saying the map didn’t reflect the most recent population statistics, which indicate one-third of the state is black. Only one of the map’s six districts at the time was a majority black district.

By 2022, a federal judge agreed with the civil rights groups. As a result, state lawmakers made a new map with a second majority Black district during a 2024 special legislative session.

But then, plaintiffs who self-described as “non-African Americans” sued the state for relying too heavily on race when it was redrawn. Federal judges agreed, setting the stage on appeals for this week’s Supreme Court case.

CBS reporting was also very good:

When the Supreme Court considered Louisiana’s map in March, it originally focused on a more narrow set of issues about the House district lines. But after agreeing to hear the case again, it asked Louisiana officials and voters involved in the challenge to address whether race-based redistricting comports with the Constitution.

That new question upped the stakes of the case, as Republicans in Louisiana urge the Supreme Court to forbid the consideration of race in the drawing of voting lines. Benjamin Aguinaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general, told the justices that race-based redistricting is “fundamentally contrary to our Constitution.” A decision in the state’s favor could erode Section 2 and deal another blow to the landmark voting rights law more than 10 years after the Supreme Court gutted one of its other provisions.

Democrats are willing to sacrifice a black congressional district for political reasons.

Politico reported, “House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries met in a Zoom meeting with members of the Illinois congressional delegation Monday to talk about redistricting in the state — an effort that is already triggering concern among lawmakers who fear the changes could dilute black political power.”

Majority-minority districts are wrong. We all know that but we are afraid to be labeled racist. The fear is real. The plaintiffs refused to use the word non-black, as you would say non-white, with the euphemism “non-African Americans.”

But considering race when divvying up congressional seats is plainly unconstitutional.

When national leaders follow the Constitution, good things happen. When they ignore it, we wind up with Jasmine Crockett.