Letter to the Editor: Callais changes the playing field for all

Published 3:00 pm Tuesday, July 7, 2026

Kristopher Galvin is right that reading primary sources matters, and his procedural summary is largely accurate (“Read Louisiana v Callais opinion for yourself,” published June 24). But a few facts are worth adding.

The Louisiana legislature didn’t voluntarily draw a second majority-Black district. They drew it because federal courts found their original map illegally diluted Black voting power under the Voting Rights Act — consistent with the Supreme Court’s own 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan. What white voters challenged wasn’t an act of racial generosity; it was a court-ordered remedy for a proven violation.

More importantly, Callais doesn’t just resolve one district’s shape. The majority opinion rewrote the standards governing all future VRA challenges: plaintiffs must now prove racial bloc voting can’t be explained by partisanship, must satisfy a state’s political objectives including incumbent protection, and can no longer rely heavily on historical discrimination evidence. That’s not deciding one case — that’s changing the rules for every future case.

As for whether the criticism is overheated — reasonable people can disagree. But the Voting Rights Act isn’t a progressive invention. It passed the Senate 77-19 in 1965 and was reauthorized in 2006 by 98-0. Within weeks of Callais, multiple Southern states began redistricting that the VRA had previously blocked. That’s not rhetoric — it’s the news.

Mr. Galvin asked readers to consult the record. On this, we agree.

Tom Marsland

Ravensdale