Posted on 05/05/2026 8:59:06 AM PDT by Red Badger
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on the landmark voting rights case of Louisiana v. Callais, while arguments were heard in the Virginia Supreme Court in Scott v. McDougle.
In Callais, the Supreme Court held that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ordered that the judgment be issued to the lower courts immediately, rather than in 32 days, allowing Louisiana to redraw its congressional maps immediately.
In McDougle, the state held a referendum vote to temporarily amend the state’s constitution to allow for a redistricting that would most likely yield a 10-1 map favoring the Democrats. Currently, the map is 6-5 in favor of the Democrats. President Donald Trump received 48% of the vote in the 2024 election; however, to “restore fairness,” as it was worded on the ballot on April 21, Republicans would be limited to less than 10% representation.
The Virginia Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision on Scott v. McDougle; however, an injunction to halt the referendum in a lower court was left in place, which may suggest a favorable ruling against the 10-1 gerrymander favoring the Democrat party.
The Gateway Pundit previously covered the contested issues that resulted in a lower court staying the referendum vote, only to have that stay overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court without a ruling on the merits. The high court would only consider the merits of the case after the election had taken place and only if the referendum vote was successful.
Enter the NAACP and League of Women Voters, et al After the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the racial gerrymander in Louisiana, the NAACP, League of Women Voters, and the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice sought a temporary restraining order barring Governor Jeff Landry from implementing a new map to replace the unconstitutional gerrymandered map before the state's primary election, for which absentee ballots were mailed out in April, and early voting began on May 2.
In their petition, plaintiffs state that they will be "irreparably harmed if they or their members have their votes canceled because of the Governor's unlawful Executive Order purporting to cancel the May 16...elections."
They later wrote, "Before the Governor issued his executive order, Louisiana NAACP members had already cast their absentee ballots in the May 16, 2026, congressional primary," and that, "As a result of the Governor suspending the elections, the Louisiana NAACP’s efforts to educate voters on the timing of the May 16, 2026, congressional primaries were wasted."
With the U.S. Supreme Court's expedited judgment, it would be unconstitutional for Louisiana to allow the election to go forward, given the High Court's ultimate decision that the current map violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
But how can Louisiana apply the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling when the election, or, as argued in McDougle, "early voting" (not the election), had already begun?
Enter Previous Arguments in the Virginia Supreme Court One of the central arguments in McDougle was that the General Assembly violated the Virginia constitution by proposing the amendment days before the election for the next General Assembly.
In Virginia, the constitution requires that the proposed amendment be agreed to a first time by the General Assembly. Then, an election for the House of Delegates must occur before the next General Assembly delegation votes on the proposed amendment a second time. From there, if the proposal is approved, it is presented to the voters of Virginia in a referendum.
The House of Delegates didn't pass the proposal a first time until October 31, 2025, days before Election Day for the next House of Delegates. Petitioners argued voters had already cast their ballots, thwarting the intent of the framers to allow constituents "accountability" for how their delegate voted on the proposal.
Millions of early voters weren't even aware that such a proposal was going to be made.
According to appellants' counsel, early voting is an option one takes knowing that something 'endemic to voting' could happen.
Appellants' counsel argued (starting at 4:10):
I understand the concern that someone who cast their ballot before something happened might be upset or regret it...and that is a problem that is endemic to early voting. That is a problem that someone accepts by taking advantage of the option of voting early. It's worth pointing out that every single voter in the commonwealth has the option to cast their ballot on Election Day.
It is worth noting that the voter being "upset" or showing "regret" for early voting isn't related to an "October Surprise" such as an affair, or a laptop full of damning information in the Virginia case.
It relates to a constitutional amendment for a temporary redistricting in order to swing the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop Trump, as alluded to by Senator Tim Kaine on FOX News.
Further, appellants' counsel argues the definition of 'election,' claiming that it begins once the polls close and the ballots are counted.
"So your position requires us to interpret 'election' in such a manner that literally every single vote that is cast for whatever the office is cast before the 'election' even begins?"
"Yes, your Honor..."
The ACLU in announcing the NAACP et al.'s emergency challenge to the Louisiana governor's executive order called for the "suspension of the state's congressional primary election after voting has already begun statewide" in line with the NAACP and League of Women Voters petition.
The hypocrisy is glaring. In Louisiana, they can't redraw the unconstitutional maps because voting for the election has already begun. However, in Virginia, they can amend their constitution, something that could take generations to undo, to take away representation from more than 40% of the Republican constituency?
Thankfully, many legal scholars, including former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, believe the Virginia Supreme Court is inclined to strike down the unconstitutional referendum.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
It’s not hypocrisy. They want to run the country the way they want to run it: that is their First Principle, and any action that promotes the First Principle is righteous and ethical.
Legally I’d think there is a difference between cancelling and moving election day to adding new issues to vote for after the early voting started.
Early voting was a trick to try and get around what they knew was coming.
I don’t see any hypocrisy here either.
Both of the pictured maps show the same thing: they favor Democrats and harm Republicans to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances.
Just talked to a couple of normie Virginians today about what’s going on in their state. I told them that VA had managed to outMD MD.
Socialists (many of today’s Democrats) don’t believe in democracy nor freedom.
They champion free speech, until you disagree with them. LOL
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.........................
SO, what is the legal justification for allowing a patently unconstitutional and racist map to go forward?
I guess if people already started on voting allowing the murder of a disfavored groups first born it should be allowed to continue because people were already considering it?
How so many cannot see the insanity of that is beyond me
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength..................
Their argument is basically that there’s not time to do things legal, so they have to let them do things that they know have been determined to be illegal.
True. That’s my point though...they cancelled the election so they cannot be racist. You think people should be celebrating :-)
Key take away. Dems have the sads. Too bad, you do not get to be racists anymore.
Don’t want to lose that cash cow ? LOL
So the NAACP’s argument is that they would be irreparably harmed if Louisiana obeys the Supreme Court’s Judgement? Wow, that’s some kind of argument right there.
Just like the lawyer that tried to get incriminating evidence thrown out.
The judge asked why.
The lawyer answered that it was detrimental to his client’s case............
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
― Booker T. Washington
1. Compute the geographic center of a state.
2. Craft a district from the furthermost point in the state (not yet allocated) and work inward, gobbling up voting jurisdictions in a circular fashion inward until you have more than enough for a district.
3. exclude peripheral voting jurisdictions, and pairs of them, the numerically closest to the excess population first, that would help exceed the required district size.
4. Make up any shortfall by partially taking from the least populated adjacent voting jurisdiction(s).
5. Repeat 2,3,4 with allocated district(s) excluded.
The game is up, clowns.
There should be a standard method applied nationwide that works well.
I’ve always lived in odd-shaped states: NY, MD, VA, FL.
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.