Supreme Court Redistricting Ruling Changes Voting Rights Standards and Ends Race-Based Map Requirements

The Supreme Court yesterday finally said out loud something that we should have said for 60 years. It’s super racist to say black people can’t win elections without rigging the maps to favor black people. It’s 2026. Black people run corporations, they sit on the Supreme Court, they’re some of the richest people in the world. We all live together now. Like the suburbs are a nice melting pot of diversity. It’s 2026. It’s time to stop treating the world like, despite the cries from the left that everyone’s a bunch of racists, they’re not. We’re not a racist country. Most people live in perfect harmony. Black people have every opportunity that white people do. They do all the things that white people do. And yet for years, our electoral system has said that black people are incapable of winning congressional seats without rigging maps to jam them full of black people.

Supreme Court Ruling Redefines How Race Can Be Used in Redistricting

And so a bunch of people went to the Supreme Court and said we’ve had enough of this, and what they did is they challenged a map in Louisiana which literally had a congressional district that snaked across the state. You think Illinois is bad, go look at the map in Louisiana. And the state said basically we are doing this to create a second all black district, we want black representation, we’re making this map to have black representation. And the only way we can do this based on previous Supreme Court rulings, which we feel were essentially mandated to do, is draw this map in which the district snakes across the entire state. And the Supreme Court with a vote of 6 to 3, so it was all the usual suspects voting no, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor, said you know what, that’s racist and it’s discriminatory and we’ve moved past that in our society, and so we’re not going to allow that to happen anymore. And CNN, and you guys know I always try to read liberal publications, conservative publications, places that I disagree with, agree with, whatever, I think it makes you more well rounded, you should do that too. But CNN had a fascinating piece on this, and they were talking about what the likely fallouts are and a lot of pearl clutching.

New Legal Standard Requires Proof of Intentional Discrimination

But CNN was fascinating to me. CNN is up in arms because now what the Supreme Court said in their ruling is discrimination has to be proven. You have to prove there’s actual discrimination taking place here, not just could be anymore, because that was what it was, well this could be discriminatory, this could disenfranchise black people. No, you actually have to prove it now, which shouldn’t that be the standard for our legal system, proof? Now you have to prove actual harm to someone. Until yesterday, our voting system was literally just operating on the feels and could bes.

Voting Rights Act Changes Could Impact Future Election Lawsuits

Sam Alito, Supreme Court Justice, wrote that the Voting Rights Act’s plaintiffs, the people who brought the case, or future Voting Rights Act plaintiffs, people that are suing based on the Voting Rights Act, because they didn’t gut the entire Voting Rights Act, they didn’t tear it all down, some people thought they may do that, they said no we’re targeting this specific provision of the Voting Rights Act. Alito now says based on this ruling that voting rights plaintiffs can only succeed when quote when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred, intent is now key, which it should be. Again, we have great population shifts both in terms of states and the populations inside of states and how they live and where they operate. We are not a racist country as much as the left wants us to be. And it was time to stop mandating that states draw maps based on what someone’s great great great great great grandfather did in the 1850s or the 1860s, or even the early 1900s. That’s how we were still drawing maps. It was ridiculous. It was ridiculous. I believe that black people can win congressional races with white voters. I believe they can do it. I think they can. Alito also claimed Wednesday that the court was stopping short of finding intentional discrimination, but he significantly narrowed the kinds of evidence plaintiffs can use, according to CNN, to prove their cases, instead requiring current conditions to be utilized.

Debate Grows Over Fair Maps, Representation, and Changing Demographics

So what he’s saying again is a lot of these states, southern states, were specifically targeted by the government on burdens they had to meet, how they had to draw their maps based on things that happened in the 1920s and 30s. That’s ridiculous. It was 100 years ago. You know what, society changes in 100 years. So yes some other person’s great great great great uncle was racist, probably true. That person is not. It doesn’t make that person racist the same way as a society that had serious issues, which by the way we fought a war and won to fix, and we did. Society does not need to operate the same way it operated 100 years ago. Draw the maps fair. I have nothing consistent. I was against maps being redrawn in Indiana because I think our maps are very fair, and I’m against having racist maps in Louisiana that aren’t fair. You guys, I am consistent. Draw the maps based on the populations, communities of interest, these other things that still exist, but simply saying we have to have black districts is ridiculous, the same way it would be if we said we have to have white districts or Asian districts or Hispanic districts, it’s ridiculous.