Louisiana v Callais: An old remedy vs the US Constitution

It's been 60 years.

The south has changed dramatically. It is time to return to the Constitution and the American ideal of equality.

The problem, per the naacp, is that white democrats won’t vote for black democrats. Something’s don’t change all that much. 

Please tell the naacp that Obama was elected twice.

Should we expect race riots?  That seems to be the usual response.

Should we expect race riots?

A good possibility. You see, there is something else involved here. Should the Court rule the race-based gerrymandering is unconstitutional, democrats would lose a lot of seats in congress and possibly lose control of congress for decades. I expect them to react.

democrats would lose a lot of seats in congress and possibly lose control of congress for decades. I expect them to react.

And that response will be a riot.  

Yes, the left uses violence.

Do you know how many black Republicans from Louisiana , Mississippi , and Alabama there are in Congress?  Zero. 

In the past 150 years there have been four black members of Congress from Alabama. Every one of the four was a Democrat. 

Im still looking at the other two states but I'm sure I will find the same thing. 

If conservative black Republicans cannot get elected in white majority districts in these states, how many black Democrats do you think would stand a chance? 

The result would be no black representation in Congress from these states. 

You see, there is something else involved here.

Yes.  Deplatforming radical activists.  Racial gerrymandering allows radicals to stir up racial issues and divisions. 

In one respect the end of racial gerrymandering benefits Democrats by eliminating the need for scattergun politics to target their pandering toward vastly dissimilar racial groups.  Democrats are going to need a new playbook.

Racial gerrymandering allows radicals to stir up racial issues and divisions. 

LOL.  You are giving away your game Nerm.  

Is it your opinion that whites dont stir up racial issues and divisions ? 

Maybe better black candidates would help. Race should NEVER be the basis for voting.

Why are the only black members of Congress from these three deep south states  Democrats from majority black districts? 

If elections would be "fair" without these districts why havent any black Republicans won in these states?  There are none. 

Let them get a new playbook. Dividing the country by race must end.

Why are the only black members of Congress from these three deep south states  Democrats from majority black districts? 

Segregation.  The Black populations of these three states have been segregated into three Congressional Districts.

Trumps presidential campaigns have all been based on racial grievance. His entire existence as a politician was originally based on racial grievance.  

The claim that right wingers just want racial equality for all is laughable. 

If elections would be "fair" without these districts why havent any black Republicans won in these states? There are none.

So if the elections were fair Republicans would win?

Trumps presidential campaigns have all been based on racial grievance.

Is calling for equality a racial grievance?

Calling for color blind treatment by the government is “racial grievance”, demanding race based set asides is not, in bizarro progressive world,

The kind of reasoning we were warned about in 1984.

There is currently one black member of the Louisiana delegation to the US House of Representatives, his name is Troy Carter. His district is majority black by a slim margin. 

Blacks make up 33% of the Louisiana population. 

There are three black members of the US House, combined, from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, one from each state. They all were elected in black majority districts. 

Without majority black districts there would be none, even though blacks make up roughly a third of this regions population. 

The goal was to insure blacks had a right to vote, not insuring a racial presence.

Is that really the best you fucking have ?  My god. 

Is that really the best you fucking have ? My god. 

It's a massively important point.

Why would anybody want somebody elected to represent a race?

Is that really the best you fucking have ? 

So equal right's isn't an issue you wish to enjoy with others?

I asked chatGPT 

Was the purpose of the voting rights act to ensure that blacks had the right to vote or that blacks needed representation? source materials from the time of enactment

It said

This is a good question, because it cuts to the heart of how we understand the function of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. The short answer is that the primary purpose of the VRA was to guarantee the right to vote for Black (and other minority) citizens — not to guarantee representation per se . But the legislative structure of the law also recognized that vote dilution (i.e. structuring elections so that minority votes are rendered ineffective) was a central problem, and therefore some provisions do bear on representation indirectly. Below is a more detailed, historically grounded analysis.

---

Primary purpose: securing the right to vote

Constitutional and statutory language

1. Statutory purpose as framed in the Act
   The Act’s formal title is “An Act to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.” ( National Archives )
   Section 2 of the VRA states:

   “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen … to vote on account of race or color.” ( National Archives )

   Thus the core statutory language focuses on denial or abridgement of the right to vote .

2. Presidential framing (Johnson’s “We Shall Overcome” speech)
   President Lyndon B. Johnson’s March 15, 1965 address to Congress frames voting as the “first and most vital of all our rights” and emphasizes that the VRA is intended to ensure every citizen can “register and vote free from the dark shadows of discrimination.” ( National Archives )
   He also says:

   “In our system the first and most vital of all our rights is the right to vote. Jefferson described it as ‘the ark of our safety.’ It is from the exercise of this right that all our other rights flow.” ( National Archives )

3. Legislative debate and context
   The legislative history emphasizes discriminatory practices — literacy tests, poll taxes, registration barriers, intimidation — used to prevent Black citizens from voting. ( National Archives )
   The Senate debates also include statements about fears that some proposals might impede equal representation in state legislatures; for example, Senator Mondale cautioned against permitting deprivation of “equal representation in our State legislatures” in the context of voting reforms. ( mondale-librarycollections.law.umn.edu ) But even that speech is a caution about unintended consequences, not an assertion that the Act’s purpose was to guarantee proportional representation.

Thus, the textual and rhetorical emphasis is on ensuring the practical ability of Black citizens to cast ballots and removing discriminatory impediments to that exercise.

---

The “representation” dimension: vote dilution and vote efficacy

While the VRA’s explicit goal was not to guarantee proportional or guaranteed representation, the Act did address vote dilution — a structural way in which votes are weakened or rendered meaningless.

• Section 2 (the general prohibition) prohibits not only intentional discrimination in imposing voting qualifications, but also practices that result in denial or abridgement of voting rights. The statute links this to the concept of “equal opportunity … to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” ( U.S. Senate )
  In other words, the Act recognizes that if the political process is structured to shut out minority voters from meaningfully influencing elections (even if not by explicit ban), that too is a violation.

• Special provisions (preclearance, federal examiners, etc.)
  The Act authorizes appointment of federal examiners and observers to ensure that discriminatory practices do not undermine voting in covered jurisdictions. ( National Archives )
  Also, under the Act, certain jurisdictions had to obtain “preclearance” from federal authorities before changing voting laws, to ensure that changes would not undermine minority voting rights. ( National Archives )

These structural safeguards acknowledge that the mere removal of explicit barriers may not suffice — if the rules are tweaked so that minority votes are diluted (for example, via at-large elections, gerrymandering, or majority-only election systems), the “right to vote” could still be hollow.

However, it is important to note:

• The VRA did not guarantee that Black citizens would always win representation or proportional office-holding.

• The Act does not mandate proportional representation or create minority-majority districts on its face.

• The concept of “representation” appears mostly in the context of whether minority voters have an equal opportunity to influence elections and choose their preferred representatives.

This has been borne out in judicial interpretation and later amendments (e.g. post-1982 changes to Section 2) where claims of vote dilution (i.e. unfair structuring of elections) have become central in enforcement.

---

In summary: purpose relative to your question

• The primary and explicit purpose of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was to ensure that Black Americans (and other racial minorities) could exercise the constitutional right to vote , by eliminating discriminatory obstacles and enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment.

• Representation is a secondary but built-in concern: the Act acknowledges that discriminatory laws or practices might dilute minority voting power, making votes ineffective even if technically cast. Thus, it includes mechanisms to combat vote dilution and protect meaningful electoral participation.

If you like, I can pull up specific congressional speeches or amendment proposals from 1965 where members debated the tension between voting rights and representation . Do you want me to dig those out?

 

If you like, I can pull up specific congressional speeches or amendment proposals from 1965 where members debated the tension between voting rights and representation . Do you want me to dig those out?

No need. We all know what they were trying to do back in 1965. It was to overcome the resistance of what once was, but no longer is the segregationist south. A lot has changed since then beginning with attitudes. The problem with what they did is the means used to achieve a noble end. That is why the Supreme Court is about to announce that creating a voting district based on race is unconstitutional.

There are three black members of the US House, combined, from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, one from each state. They all were elected in black majority districts. 

Are you suggesting the Black populations of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have been segregated into only three Congressional Districts?  Seems that racial gerrymandering is exacerbating the very problem it was supposed to fix.  Why is this acceptable?

I'm suggesting that white majority districts in these states will not elect a black candidate, Democrat or Republican. 

I'm suggesting that white majority districts in these states will not elect a black candidate, Democrat or Republican. 

Wesley Hunt says hello.

South Carolina, the home of the confederacy, gave more votes to a black Republican in a state wide election than a white Republican even though there are very few black republicans. Seems, per the NAACP, the problem is white democrats don't vote for black democrats. 

In the roughly 150 years since the end of Reconstruction, there have been only two Republican black US Senators. ONE of them was from the south (Scott). 

Black congressional candidates are not going to win in majority white districts in Louisiana Mississippi and Alabama, even if they are Republicans.  How do we know that? Because it has never happened. Once that starts happening then we can consider changing the voting laws. 

Black congressional candidates are not going to win in majority white districts in Louisiana Mississippi and Alabama, even if they are Republicans.  How do we know that? Because it has never happened. Once that starts happening then we can consider changing the voting laws.

So.... again.... "fair" voting results in Republicans winning?

thout majority black districts there would be none, even though blacks make up roughly a third of this regions population. 

What about white democrats, are they entitled to white democratic representation?  There are zero Republican congressmen in wide swaths of New England despite making up 40% or more of the population. Do you want to mandate special Republican districts to make sure they aren't disenfranchised?  

What about the white minority in black majority areas like Jackson, MS  Should they have white majority  carveout district to ensure they have representation?

Please spell out your plan to ensure representation is equally divided by race/party etc..