Tipsheet

The Court Didn't Officially Do This to the Voting Right Act, But Liberals Already Know

Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa  |  April 30, 2026 7:00 AM

I won’t lie—I expected more emotion here. I thought Jim Crow 2.0 talking points and other nonsense from the Left would follow the Supreme Court’s decision in the Louisiana v. Callais case, which could’ve undermined Section II of the Voting Rights Act. That didn’t happen, but they might as well have, and liberals know it. 

The case arises from the drawing of race-based districts, specifically the intentional carving out of majority-black districts in Louisiana. The state’s initial map was rejected for violating the VRA. The second attempt resulted in a lawsuit arguing that such a district was unconstitutional, and the Court, in a 6-3 decision, agreed. Section II’s application is now more limited. While the majority didn’t completely eliminate the provision, the liberal dissent implied that it effectively did. Either way, this was a significant win, paving the way for redistricting across the entire South. 

 SCOTUS Ruling on LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS  by  Matt Vespa 


Former President Barack Obama, who is addicted to lecturing the public, said this yesterday:

Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities - so long as they do it under the guise of “partisanship” rather than explicit “racial bias.” And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.

The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers - not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.

Temu Obama said this:

Voter suppression is a way of life for Donald Trump and far right extremists on the Supreme Court.

Republicans know they cannot win a free and fair election in November and so they are desperate to rig it.

We will never let them succeed.

I believe Jeffries often confuses his talking points. Voter suppression does not resonate with most voters; they support the Save America Act, which includes voter ID and other measures to ensure only American citizens can vote. Democrats have relied on increasing the illegal alien population, which has boosted congressional apportionment for decades. That’s how they stay relevant, so any election integrity laws will be opposed from the start. 

Also, I’ve been told that declarations that our elections are rigged are an act of treason or armed rebellion. 

I’ll say this, NBC News had a fair recap of the opinion, while, of course, adding Thomas’ concurrence, which was the better take:

The justices, split 6-3 with the court's conservatives in the majority, told states they can almost never consider race when drawing maps to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was enacted to protect minority voters who long faced discrimination in elections.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that while there may be extreme situations where the use of race can be justified to draw a map, it was not in the Louisiana case. As a result, the new map was an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander," he added.

In a separate concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, a longtime critic of the Voting Rights Act, said the ruling should "largely put an end" to a system that he saw as unlawfully dividing people into districts based on race.

I can’t wait to hear how the South is still in Reconstruction mode. It’s not. What I still can’t believe is that the NAACP lawyers arguing for the VRA during oral arguments tried to claim that white Democrats don’t vote for black people.