The U.S. Supreme Court could limit the 1965 Voting Rights Act and alter the way congressional redistricting maps are created, according to The Washington Times. The case stems from a lower court's decision to mandate that Louisiana add a second majority-Black district, based on its overall population, rather than the geographic distribution of that population.
It's always been the case that the winning political party gets to draw the districting maps, including when it is advantageous to the party in power. However, Democrats have used the 60-year-old legislation as a way to push their own version of how the maps should be drawn, and it has become a way to discriminate.
This is what happened in Louisiana, as the arbitrary factor of skin color became the method by which to redraw the maps, thanks to a lower court's decision. That scheme may now be in jeopardy with the case before the conservative-leaning high court.
Some, including Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aruinaga, argue that the Voting Rights Act is reductive when it comes to race and that at least part of it is unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not tolerate this system of government-mandated racial balancing," Aguinaga argued before the Supreme Court.
Janai Nelson, an attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said that redrawing the maps to eliminate the new Black districts would be "a staggering" change to the way voting is made fair. "This is about race," Nelson said, arguing in favor of keeping the status quo.
"Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is laser-focused on eliminating racial discrimination from our electoral process regardless of party," she added. However, the justices have been hinting that Section 2 of the legislation may be on the chopping block, especially those appointed by President Donald Trump.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch pushed back on Nelson's assertion, noting that it sounds as if it is "sometimes acceptable for a federal district court to order a map that intentionally discriminates on the basis of race," he said. Similarly, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said that Section 2 may be obsolete, or at least on its way to becoming so.
"This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time … but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint," Kavanaugh said. Democrats see it differently, of course, and Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson insisted that racial discrimination is the only way to fix racial discrimination.
"They’re so tied up with race because that’s the initial problem. That’s the beginning," Jackson said.
As per the usual arrangement, the left is doing mental gymnastics to explain how racial discrimination is actually a good thing because it suits their purposes this time around. As the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh pointed out in a post to X, formerly Twitter, Democrats are attached to the law because it has been a boon for them.
"Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to rig the system for decades. If the Supreme Court finally fixes this problem, and it looks like they will, Democrats may never win a majority in the House ever again," Walsh wrote on Thursday.
"This is a huge, huge case," he added. The post included a photo of the southern states and how Democratic strongholds would be "wiped out" if the law was repealed.
Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to rig the system for decades. If the Supreme Court finally fixes this problem, and it looks like they will, Democrats may never win a majority in the House ever again. This is a huge, huge case. https://t.co/oSG3isAxLA
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 16, 2025
There is no excuse for racial discrimination, even when it is ostensibly done to make things fairer for a downtrodden population. The only truly fair move is to treat people like individuals and not based on the color of their skin, but the left is simply incapable of doing so.
