Louisiana vs Callais ....

quote:

---

Louisiana vs Callais

Louisiana v. Callais (Supreme Court case): A redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning whether Louisiana's congressional map, which includes two majority-Black districts, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or properly complies with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case originated from a challenge to an earlier map that concentrated Black voters into a single district, potentially diluting their voting power in violation of Section 2 of the VRA. After lower courts found the initial map likely violated the VRA, Louisiana enacted Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), creating two majority-Black districts. Opponents argued this new map constituted racial gerrymandering by making race the predominant factor in redistricting. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 24, 2025, and on June 27, 2025, ordered the case to be reargued in the next term, leaving the current map with two majority-Black districts in place, for now.

---

Word is starting to leak that SCOTUS may vote 6-3 to end the insane gerrymandering redistricting based on race ... laws that we've all suffered under since the 60s as part of the Civil Rights Act.

It's already been judged to be unconstitutional by a three judge panel ... which was the needed step to take, before it headed to SCOTUS.

It is, imho and based upon what I've read, the biggest case to come down the pike in this country in over 100 years or more.

Trump sent a letter to the Clerk of SCOTUS to let them know that our current DOJ will not be showing up to argue in favor of race-based gerrymandering ... the exact opposite of what Garland/Biden intended to do. The DOJ is staying out of it ... which is a good thing.

SCOTUS decided to actually hear the case this past session but it's been continued. Next session they will hear rearguments.

Listening to the arguments (I listened to all 79 minutes, twice) ... it's clear SCOTUS will find 6-3 against the democRATs, as it stands now.

Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent against delaying the vote until the next session ... he wanted it resolved now. Mind you, black judge wants it decided now. Brilliant letter: Read it by clicking here in pdf form. He rips into the delay and for good reason.

Who wins in a case where there's a conflict between The Constitution and a statute? The Constitution ALWAYS wins.

Raced based dilution of our voting districts via gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Full stop.

What does this mean?

It means democcRATs will lose 25+ seats in The House and I'm not sure how many in the Senate.

What else will it mean? It'll be a big time win on a state politics level as well.

What else might it mean? Well, technically it could be used to further abolish the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which would also get rid of the "unlawful to ask for IDs at the voting booth" statute that has also contributed to libtards staying in power for decades.

Thank you Phillip Callais of Louisiana and a huge LSU fan from what I've read.

I'm really not convinced that Louisiana wants to be in this fight .... but it's complicated.

quote:

---

Louisiana (State of Louisiana): The defendant in Louisiana v. Callais, represented by the Secretary of State Nancy Landry, which defends the congressional map (SB8) as a necessary response to a federal court order in Robinson v. Louisiana requiring the creation of a second majority-Black district to remedy a likely violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana argues that the legislature’s primary motivation was compliance with the court order and protecting Republican incumbents, not racial classification, and that the district court erred in subjecting the map to strict scrutiny.

---