Could a SCOTUS Decision in ‘Louisiana v. Callais’ End Democrat Redistricting Scams Once and for All? – RedState

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from Louisiana v. Callaisa 2024 Louisiana Congressional challenge that brings the Voting Rights Act into conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is the second time this case has been brought before SCOTUS; The justices heard initial arguments in March but did not issue a ruling this past term.

If at the end of the 2025 term, the SCOTUS rules in favor of Louisiana, this case would not only upend how the Voting Rights Act is used, but also change the calculus of redistricting plans put forward in California and New York.

Learn more: This breakdown shows how catastrophic the redistricting battle could be for Democrats

Supreme Court to Hear Louisiana Redistricting Case — Here’s Why the Outcome Could Matter in Missouri

Lawyer and former US Senate candidate for California, Mark Meuser, explained this well in an article

The Supreme Court could soon change the way all U.S. Congressional maps are drawn, including California.

Today, the Court hears oral arguments in the case of Callais v. Louisiana, a case that could reshape redistricting for decades.

Here’s what’s at stake: For years, federal courts have…

–Mark Meuser (@MarkMeuser) October 15, 2025

Meuser’s message read in part:

The Supreme Court could soon change the way all U.S. Congressional maps are drawn, including California.

Today, the Court hears oral arguments in Callais v. Louisianaa case that could reshape redistricting for decades.

Here’s what’s at stake: For years, federal courts have interpreted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as requiring states to divide congressional districts so that minority groups are virtually assured of the opportunity to elect a representative of their same race. Callais challenges this approach, arguing that the current interpretation of the VRA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it requires states to make race the predominant factor in drawing boundaries between districts.

Meuser concluded:

When districts are established to ensure that one party always wins, it shifts power from the people to special interests. It allows political actors and activist groups to choose the politicians who govern us, rather than letting voters choose their representatives.

If the Court agrees with Callaisthe ruling could significantly limit the use of race in redistricting nationwide. This means that the three-dimensional maps that Gavin Newsom proposes with Prop 50 could be deemed unconstitutional.

The stakes are high, and this challenge to the Voting Rights Act will reveal whether its original intent still serves its purpose or whether it is time to reinvent it.

Louisiana is not the only state to assert the conflict of interest and unconstitutionality of using the Voting Rights Act as a permanent racial cudgel. Fifteen other states, including Alabama, filed amicus briefs in support. As RedState has reported, Alabama has faced these ping-pong challenges on its local and congressional maps for years.

Dive Deeper: Federal Court Chooses Alabama Congressional Map That Carves Out a Separate Black District

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote in his amicus brief to the court:

Louisiana’s congressional plan had previously been banned, so the state adopted a race-based map with a new “stretch” majority-black district.[ing] some 250 miles” from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. Callais v. Landry732 F.Supp.3d 574, 588 (WD La. 2024). This second attempt was declared unconstitutional and banned. Identifier. at 582.

Alabama’s congressional plan was also previously banned, so the state adopted a new map prioritizing non-racial goals. This second attempt was ordered to not creating a new majority-black district stretching some 250 miles from Mobile to the Georgia border. Singleton vs. Allen782 F.Supp.3d 1092 (ND Ala. May 8, 2025), appeal pendingNo. 25-274 (United States). The state has even been intentionally called racist for try to avoid an unconstitutional use of race.

It’s time for this “lose-lose” situation to end. Alexander v. SC NAACP602 US 1, 65 (2024) (Thomas, J., concurring). No one disputes that “[t]The VRA is the crown jewel of civil rights legislation,” but its “brilliance” can be seen without looking at “dilution” litigation through rose-colored glasses. Robinson.Br.1. There is no “clarity and correctness” in deciding when a card becomes diluted. Identifier. There is no “careful design” in §2 that “limits[s]“the use of race” to tailor remedies for continued racial discrimination.” Identifier. at 47. Perhaps in decades past, the Court might have assumed that §2 “remedied specific, identified instances of past discrimination” in redistricting. SFFA600 US to 207. Not anymore. This rampant, opaque and odious use of race “cannot extend” any further. Allen v. Milligan599 US 1, 45 (2023) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

When Congress first passed the law, it benefited the interests of the black community. However, the black community is no longer a monolith, if it ever was. It is multifaceted, varied, and what concerns one aspect does not even go under the radar of the others. If the 2024 elections have proven anything, it’s that representation still matters, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to skin color.

The reason Trump won more than 20% of the black vote, especially among men, is because he spoke to their community interests (crime and safety) and their financial concerns (the economy), not their race. Thus, the use of “black representation” for redistricting challenges becomes old, overused and, with each case brought before the courts, fallacious. These challenges to the Voting Rights Act against Louisiana and other states follow a pattern that no longer exists. However, the plaintiff’s lawyer argued before the judges that this was indeed the case. White people won’t vote for black candidates, regardless of party, she says.

LISTEN:

NAACP lawyer argues at SCOTUS that it is necessary to create race-based congressional districts because “white Democrats were not voting for black candidates, whether they were Democratic or not.” pic.twitter.com/PlTPSYNqye

– Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 15, 2025

This is the Democrats’ knee-jerk argument: Implicit bias and systemic racism demand that districts be drawn based on race. When the problem is that they have no idea how to actually represent their constituents or what they actually want, they only know how to represent their own interests.

The set of challenges that come up every time states, especially those in the South, redistrict only benefit one party, and it’s not the Republicans. Republican Sen. Nikki Torres of Washington State proved it. She wrote about how Washington state’s 2021 redistricting disenfranchised Hispanics. They limited the Hispanic vote in his district because they didn’t like the fact that Torres represented the wrong party.

So even though Hispanic voters chose me, I was not the right type of Hispanic according to Democrats. Why not? My parents were both born in Mexico. They met in America and wanted their children to achieve the American dream. We worked hard as a family to pick Eastern Washington’s crops: cherries, apples, plums, grapes. Unexpectedly, I became a single mother at 16. But I worked hard to get my GED. I then became the first in my family to earn a college degree and then an MBA.

So why wasn’t I the right type of Hispanic for the Democrats? Because I’m a Republican. Washington Democrats did not use race in redistricting to help our community. They used race to help themselves.

This is where the problem lies. As long as the Voting Rights Act is used to represent a political party and not the interests of the community, is it valid? Whether or not the Constitution represents a non-partisan, racially bias-free voting opportunity?

If the outcome goes in favor of Louisiana, we already know the potential split: 5-4, 6-3 is the usual split on this court. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has already indicated which way the wind is blowing for her with this stupid and mind-boggling comparison between race and disability.

LISTEN:

Justice Jackson just compared black people who cannot create majority black congressional districts to people with disabilities who cannot enter a building before the ADA.

“They don’t have equal access to the electoral system. They are disabled.” pic.twitter.com/zvN8bJf4Xc

– Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 15, 2025

Editor’s Note: Schumer’s closure is here. Rather than putting the American people first, Chuck Schumer and radical Democrats forced a government shutdown on health care for illegal immigrants. They own that.

Please help us continue reporting the truth about Schumer’s shutdown. Use promotional code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.