NOT ABOVE THE MAP WAR

THE COURT IS NOT ABOVE THE MAP WAR

The fight after Louisiana v. Callais is no longer only about Louisiana, or Alabama, or Mississippi. It is about whether America still believes votes should count equally once Black, Native, Latino, and poor communities begin winning enough power to matter.

The Warren Court's "one person, one vote" revolution was built on a simple premise: representation belongs to people, not land, not acreage, not partisan bosses, not racial hierarchies dressed up as district lines. The Federal Judicial Center notes that Baker v. Carr opened federal courts to apportionment challenges, and that later cases required plans to embody "one person, one vote." It also quotes Reynolds v. Sims: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres."

Callais moves in a bleaker direction. The Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, and therefore no compelling interest justified the state's use of race in drawing SB8. Civil-rights advocates argue the ruling guts Section 2 by letting states invoke partisan goals as cover for racial dilution. LDF says the decision threatens Black political power and could make fair districts vanish as legislatures target representation for voters of color.

Now the map war is moving fast. Democracy Works reports that, after Callais, Louisiana suspended U.S. House primaries, Tennessee enacted a new congressional map, Alabama moved forward after the Court lifted an injunction, and Mississippi and Georgia leaders signaled new maps after the midterms. That is not ordinary redistricting. That is power hearing a door unlock.

Mississippi shows the nerve center of the project. Mississippi Today reports that politicians there are focused on removing Rep. Bennie Thompson, the state's lone Black member of Congress, and that some leaders see Callais as permission to eliminate majority-Black districts. The article notes that Black Mississippians are nearly 40 percent of the state's population, yet some officials want no majority-Black congressional district at all.

The court fight is also becoming a legitimacy fight. Rep. Steve Cohen filed six articles of impeachment against Chief Justice John Roberts, alleging that Roberts's leadership has produced arbitrary and partisan outcomes; the report notes Cohen's Memphis-based district was split into three districts after Tennessee lawmakers redrew the map following Callais. Whether that impeachment effort advances or not, it names the question millions are asking: who holds the Court accountable when the Court helps decide who gets political power?

A broader rule-of-law alarm is ringing. A UCLA and Bright Line Watch survey of federal judges, elite lawyers, and law professors found experts rate the rule of law in the United States at its lowest point in at least a decade; 94 percent said Trump's second term is more threatening to the rule of law than his first, and only 30 percent were confident the Supreme Court would make impartial decisions in Trump administration cases. Dartmouth’s summary reports similar findings, including widespread concern over politicized law enforcement, executive overreach, and low confidence in core institutions.

A CRT analysis makes the pattern plain. White supremacy does not need a poll tax when it has a map. It does not need a literacy test when it has strict scrutiny turned against racial repair. It does not need to say "Black voters should have less power" when it can say "partisan advantage" and let the racial outcome speak for itself.

The civic answer is disciplined pressure: state voting-rights acts, congressional reform, court ethics, court reform debate, local organizing, voter education, litigation, and public exposure of every map drawn to make communities disappear. The demand is simple: equal representation, accountable courts, and a democracy where the people choose leaders — not the other way around.