THE NEW GERRYMANDERING TRICK

THE NEW GERRYMANDERING TRICK: SAY IT’S ABOUT POLITICS, NOT RACE

The post-Louisiana v. Callais redistricting fight has exposed a dangerous contradiction in American democracy.

The Supreme Court did not outlaw partisan gerrymandering. Instead, Callais made why politicians drew a map enormously important.

The Court held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires circumstances supporting a strong inference of intentional racial discrimination. At the same time, partisan advantage remains a legitimate nonracial districting objective.

That creates an obvious problem in places where race and party overlap.

If Black voters heavily support Democrats, was a district dismantled because lawmakers wanted fewer Black voters with political power—or simply fewer Democrats?

That distinction is now constitutional dynamite.

Mississippi shows why. At the state's first post-Callais redistricting hearing, speaker after speaker urged legislators not to redraw existing districts. Mississippi Independent reporting says participants argued that Callais does not require Mississippi to redraw anything. Mississippi is roughly 38% Black but currently has only one Black-opportunity congressional district.

Republican officials see matters differently. Magnolia Tribune reports that Gov. Tate Reeves has explicitly called for reconsidering Rep. Bennie Thompson's 2nd District, while state redistricting chairman Dean Kirby says Callais "has changed everything." The same report correctly notes that the Supreme Court has long treated partisan considerations differently from racial discrimination.

That disagreement deserves to be confronted rather than caricatured.

Because California has the same problem.

California's Proposition 50 map was intentionally designed to improve Democrats' congressional position. Republicans and the Trump Justice Department argued that race—especially Latino voting strength—also influenced its design. A federal court found that the evidence instead showed a political gerrymander, and the Supreme Court declined to block the map for 2026.

So intellectual consistency requires a simple rule:

If using race as a proxy for party is unconstitutional in Louisiana or Mississippi, it cannot suddenly become acceptable in California.

But the inverse should also be acknowledged.

If lawmakers can legally redraw districts for naked partisan advantage—as federal doctrine largely permits—then politicians possess a ready-made defense whenever racial and partisan geography overlap:

We weren't targeting Black voters. We were targeting Democrats.

That is the loophole critics of Callais fear.

The National Urban League argues that the decision rewards discriminatory outcomes when explicit evidence of racial intent is absent. That is the organization's advocacy interpretation, not the Supreme Court's characterization of its decision, but Mississippi's unfolding debate demonstrates why the issue is no abstraction.

Tech Policy Press pushes the argument further, comparing Callais with supposedly race-neutral algorithms. Its thesis is provocative: treating people identically can reproduce inequality when the environment in which those rules operate is already unequal.

Then comes the genuinely extraordinary proposal hanging over the 2026 election.

Wayne Allyn Root told President Trump that if Congress refuses to enact his preferred election restrictions, Trump should declare a "national security emergency for elections." Trump responded: "stranger things have happened." Election-law professor Rick Hasen points out that calling elections an emergency does not give the president constitutional authority to run them.

Congress does have broad power over congressional elections—but it is constitutionally compartmentalized. States possess initial responsibility, Congress may override many rules, and presidents do not simply inherit Congress's Elections Clause authority.

That gives us the real democratic test.

Not Republican maps versus Democratic maps.

Not Black voters versus white voters.

It is whether every political faction must obey the same rules when controlling the map would help it stay in power.

A ballot is not meaningful merely because government permits you to mark it.

Democracy requires that politicians cannot endlessly redesign the electorate whose judgment they are supposed to obey.