Letter to the Editor: Read Louisiana v Callais opinion for yourself
Published 1:00 pm Tuesday, June 23, 2026
Rich Elfers looks at the Louisiana v Callais Supreme Court decision from a political perspective, ascribing political motives for the decision and describing it as “outright racism and clearly unconstitutional.” (“In Callais, SCOTUS tossed good decision-making for political goals,” published June 10)
If you prefer reality, I suggest you read the actual decision, which is public information. It sets forth the history of the case, legal precedents and how the Constitution narrowly limits the circumstances where discrimination based on race is allowed. It also presents maps connected with the case. The Supreme Court is the body with the authority to decide what is unconstitutional.
A short history of this case: Louisiana retained six congressional seats after the 2020 census, but population shifts within the state caused the state legislature to slightly adjust the map in 2022 so that each district had one-sixth of the census total. Generally, the legislature established the six districts by combining contiguous parishes (counties). Activists sued for a more radical redistricting that would push more black voters into one district. A Federal judge ruled in their favor and ordered the state legislature to draw a map that would create a majority-Black district.
The legislature followed the court order and the new map included a gerrymandered district that wandered in a narrow zig-zag across the state. The first decision and this revised map were appealed. A three-judge panel overruled the first decision. That panel’s decision was appealed and the Supreme Court put a stay on the panel’s ruling so that the parties could present their cases, with the Court calling for arguments in consideration of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. As a result, the 2024 congressional election used this new racially-gerrymandered map.
By a six to three vote the Supreme Court reversed the decision by the first judge and negated the resulting racially-gerrymandered map. Essentially the Court ruled that race alone was not an acceptable criterion for determining congressional districts. The Louisiana legislature has since redrawn the districts to eliminate the racially-gerrymandered district. The new map is for the 2026 congressional elections. It very closely resembles the map the legislature approved in 2022 and the one used before the 2020 census. Naturally, more litigation has been filed against this new map.
Elfers’ claim that the justices want to “return to Jim Crow 2.0” is silly. “Jim Crow 2.0” is a new term made up by progressives to stir up emotions and promote racial discord. The genuine term “Jim Crow” describes the White segregationist Democrats who wanted to suppress Blacks by keeping them in separate schools, separate rest rooms and the like, and keeping them from voting at all. Justice Clarence Thomas (who is Black) grew up in the South during the Jim Crow era and he was an especially strong majority voice in this six to three Supreme court decision; he’s certainly not trying to bring back the bad old days.
Kristopher Galvin
Black Diamond
