Posted on 08/17/2025 7:59:34 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The battle between Texas and Democrat states over gerrymandering seems likely to touch on the biggest driver of Democrat gerrymandering which fundamentally altered the political balance of power in state after state. Louisiana v. Callais is likely headed for a big Supreme Court decision that will fundamentally change how the Voting Rights Act enforces minority districts.
There’s nothing to celebrate about the 60th anniversary of the VRA, a civil rights era relic which long ago stopped fighting segregation and instead enforced partisan gerrymandering with no end in sight. When the Supreme Court began allowing VRA ‘monitoring’ of elections in some states to sunset, Democrats cried that segregation and slavery were about to come back.
But for all the talk of democracy and racism, Louisiana v. Callais shows what keeping the zombie VRA alive is really about. The case is about whether federal courts can force Louisiana to create two Democrat congressional seats under the guise of creating two black seats. It’s a common form of gerrymandering that uses race as a trojan horse for mandating Dem seats.
When heavily gerrymandered Democrat states like California, New York and Illinois eliminate Republican seats, that’s not seen as a Voting Rights Act violation even though much as Democrat seats are disproportionately minority, Republican seats are disproportionately white.
Democrats are not fighting to keep the VRA alive because they care about black people, but because they care about maintaining the racially gerrymandered seats produced by VRA abuses. A New York Times column by Jamelle Bouie complained that “the current Supreme Court’s vision of a rigidly colorblind Constitution” would lead it to reject the notion that the Constitution mandates majority black and therefore Democrat districts. But if the issue were about racial disenfranchisement, Democrats would try to boost the power of black voters by making them a crucial swing bloc in key races instead of apportioning guaranteed seats to senile members of the Congressional Black Caucus who hardly bother running anymore.
Over in Texas, at the center of a national gerrymandering civil war, did the increasingly demented Rep. Al Green, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the late Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who died last year, only to be replaced by Rep. Sylvester Turner, who died this year do any more for black people than their white opposite numbers have done for white people? The amount of scandals, ethics violations and criminal investigations that follow Congressional Black Caucus members is ample evidence of that. The average age of CBC leaders with a lifetime sinecure is in the 70s.
Abusing the VRA to create minority seats for Democrats who couldn’t lose an election unless they were actually locked up for their criminal careers didn’t empower black people, it empowered the Democrats. And that racial gerrymandering gave Democrats guaranteed seats.
The underlying question being asked 60 years later in Louisiana v. Callais is whether black people can be represented by representatives from other races, and whether the same is true for all of America’s other racial, ethnic and religious groups. Despite reams of critical race theory propaganda, the 1619 Project, the career of lucrative literary racists like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi, and the BLM riots, there’s no reason to believe in racially segregated districts.
If having white people represent districts with black voters in it was really unthinkable, how can the Democrats justify the career of Rep. Steve Cohen, who has represented a majority black district, along with Rep. Shri Thanedar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and vice versa, quite a few of the younger black Democrats have been elected from majority white congressional districts.
Democrats don’t actually believe that black districts need black representatives, or they would have long ago booted third world carpetbaggers like Tlaib and Thanedar, along with the loathsome Cohen who once bragged that he was an honorary black man because he was driving a broken down car and dating his own daughter. What they do believe is that black districts are more likely to elect Dems of whatever race and so they gerrymander them.
The Voting Rights Act long ago turned into illegal racial gerrymandering and if more of it is chipped away, it will make it possible for Texas to determine districts for political, not racial reasons, and while gerrymandering may not be ideal, the only thing worse than depriving people of political power, forcing them into laughably shaped districts and denying them representation, for their political views is doing all that because of their race. And that’s what the VRA has been doing.
No one is entitled to a congressional seat on account of their race. That notion is as blatantly racist as the abuses that originally led to measures like the Voting Rights Act. Despite the best effort of a civil rights movement that long soured from opposing segregation to supporting it, the whole point of desegregation is, as Martin Luther King said, is choosing content of character over skin color. And content of character does not have a guaranteed two seats in Louisiana.
Or anywhere else.
There are genuine solutions to gerrymandering. They include outlawing districts shaped like a frightened snail trying to escape from an earthquake. Texas has upped the ante for either escalating gerrymandering or negotiating a compact to end the gerrymandering arms race. And if the Supreme Court rules wisely in Louisiana v. Callais, it can help end racial gerrymandering.
The best way to end racism, segregation, racial discrimination and all the other baskets of racial ills is to stop practicing it. The opposite of racism isn’t anti-racism, it’s non-racism. A multiracial Supreme Court has the opportunity to end one of the final vestiges of actual systemic racism.
And send the message that the right to vote isn’t a racial entitlement, it’s an American one.
Why is Gerrymandering permitted?
Who would enforce a “no Gerrymandering” rule? There is no reason to believe whoever did so would be subject to fewer political pressures than there are currently.
“whether black people can be represented by representatives from other races, and whether the same is true for all of America’s other racial, ethnic and religious groups”
The so-called “hispanics” jumped on the bandwagon early and even Richard Nixon got on board by creating the hispanic cohort as a protected class.
This is why we now districts in all the Southwestern states rigged to elect a Mexican. Essentially they are saying that these are people who form separate nations - like Indian tribes - and the courts are requiring that they have their own representation.
We’re not the UN. It’s supposed to be the US. And Mexico is not one of the States.
When a black woman could get elected senator of IL many decades ago and a black man got elected a president twice, the justification of affirmative action and gerrymandering to guarantee minorities can have representative ceased to exist.
"The Voting Rights Act is Illegal Racial Gerrymandering"
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
The bottom line regarding voting rights issues is that such "rights" are a Trojan Horse front-end for stealing elections imo.
More specifically, the very corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties that have pirated control of state and federal governments are fighting to protect the 16th Amendment (16A; direct taxes) so that the deep state Congress can continue to spend taxpayer dollars for things that it cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, most federal taxes arguably stolen state revenues (citizens' wallets).
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country. —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
The 16th Amendment is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime imo, and desperately needs to be repealed.
Regarding constitutionally justified federal spending, let's consider what can be referred to as the Madison test, named after President James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.
The Madison test for a federal spending bill originated as follows imo. When the 14th Congress had found existing tax revenues, lawmakers decided to use it to start building roads and canals, basing the resulting Bonus Bill of 1817 solely on the General Welfare Clause, (GWC; 1.8.1).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [emphasis added], to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
But even though Madison agreed with Congress that infrastructure spending would be beneficial, he also explained that regardless that GWC gave Congress the power to appropriate revenues, the clauses following GWC in Section 8 limit what Congress can spend tax dollars for.
Note that the Bonus Bill didn't even pass the wild card "Necessary and Proper" Clause test according to Madison.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper [emphasis added] for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States. —President James Madison, March 3, 1817: Veto Message on the Internal Improvements Bill
Getting rid of 16A will basically make Trump's legacy of draining the swamp permanent imo. It's up to Trump's red tsunami of supporters, evidenced by his record-breaking win in 2024', to make the repeal of 16A the main talking point of the 2026 primaries.
Patriots need to primary all state and federal lawmakers who refuse to publicly promise to support a referendum to the states to repeal that amendment in January 2027.
Otherwise, because of the short-term memories of post-17th Amendment ratification voters imo, Harris can probably still eventually steal the Oval Office so that elite Democrats and RINOs can continue to abuse 16A.
The Party of the Rat despises our Constitution because it seeks Freedom and Equality whereas the 'Ratz seek privilege and advantage.
The Second Amendment is our chemotherapy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.