A bazillion words have been written on the obscenely corrupt Louisiana v. Callais decision that surgically removed the teeth from Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decision is being described as prohibiting the kind of “race-based redistricting” that created majority Black congressional voting districts enabling Black people, largely in the deep South, to elect not only Black members of Congress to represent them, but Black representatives and senators in state legislatures.
Such race-based districts were created as a remedy to both slavery and the Jim Crow era. Slaves were not citizens but property. The Constitution, as it was originally written, created the dastardly three-fifths compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person to determine the size of population to establish representation in Congress. Enslaved people constituted roughly 40 percent of the population of the states of the deep South, with South Carolina having 43 percent slaves in its population at the time of the signing of the Constitution. Without counting slaves as semi-citizens for the purpose of representation in Congress, the states of the South would have been dwarfed in the national legislature in comparison to the states of the North. Southerners knew that northern states would run the country’s government and eventually legislate slavery out of existence. That the southern states were willing to fight a shooting war to defend slavery, tells you everything you need to know about where they were coming from, to use a modern turn of phrase.
The South never really let go of slavery, to be as blunt as possible. The states of the deep South still have large Black populations: Louisiana is about 33 percent Black; Mississippi is about 38 percent Black; Alabama is about 27 percent Black. All three states would have much larger Black populations today if Black people had not undertaken the Great Migration to the north during Jim Crow, when about 6 million Black people moved out of the deep South to escape racist violence, economic hardship that kept Blacks in what amounted to enforced poverty, and the lack of political representation they suffered due to being denied the right to vote in their states.
The Callais decision, like Shelby County v. Holder before it, doesn’t just deny the reality of the political situation in the South, where racism rules as if Jim Crow laws were still in effect, it goes back even further to embrace the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which legalized the separate-but-equal doctrine of racists and stripped Black people of their rights under the 14th Amendment. Plessy followed a previous decision by the Supreme Court that overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in a decision holding that the 14th Amendment applied only to discrimination by states and not to discrimination by individuals and businesses.
Are you detecting a trend here? The Supreme Court, way back in the late 1800’s, set about to take apart the Reconstruction Amendments, the 14th and the 15th, that had been added to the Constitution to scrub at the stain left by slavery since the nation’s founding. This Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has continued the assault on the 14th and 15th Amendments by a series of decisions that are so similar to Plessy, they are stunning. Basically, the Court is attempting to return the status of Blacks, especially in the South, to what it was under Jim Crow, when they could be residents of the United States, but not citizens with the same rights as White people.
Elections have no meaning if your vote doesn’t count. We have seen what the Trump administration is attempting to do by making it easier for states to limit participation in voting by people they don’t like, however you define them – Black, Latino, Democrat, liberal. But the Callais decision is worse. The Supreme Court is telling Black people that they can live in Louisiana and Tennessee, just to name two of the biggest offenders, but they can’t vote to affect their status as citizens of those states.
The Callais decision cloaks its racism in the language of pure politics, holding that it’s okay to discriminate in drawing voting maps on the basis of political party, but not on race. But everyone in the deep South has known since the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Laws that there are two parties in the South: the White party and the Black party. And everyone knows what that means. Whites vote Republican. Blacks vote Democrat. When you draw lines creating districts that eliminate the power of Democrats to elect representatives to Congress and to state legislatures, you’re drawing lines that lessen or even eliminate the power of Blacks to elect people to represent their interests.
This is fixing elections, pure and simple. Tennessee is drawing a map that will eliminate the last district in the state represented in Congress by a Democrat, the area immediately around and including Memphis. They already eliminated the Democratic district that existed in Nashville by dribbling sections of Democratic voters into heavily Republican areas around the city. When Louisiana is finished with its post-Callais redistricting, that state most likely won’t have a Democrat in Congress, either, according to Ed Chervenak, a political analyst and political science professor at the University of New Orleans.
I’ve seen stories that attempt to justify the Roberts’ court and its so-called colorblind doctrine by saying, well, it’s just politics. It’s not. When Tennessee wipes out its last Black district around Memphis, and Louisiana carves itself up to eliminate the two Democrats who currently serve in Congress, the Republican Party will make sure to elect White racists to replace the Democrats. Their votes will be added to other Republican votes in Congress that will seek to eliminate Head Start and school lunch programs because they are seen, utterly wrongly, as benefitting the inner cities – read Blacks – more than rural areas.
There is no way to see what the Roberts court has done other than as turning back the clock. The truly stunning part of it is that they want the clock turned back to 1866, not 1965. The Supreme Court, as it is currently constituted, is ready and able to take on the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy. One after another, right-wing legal outfits have been filing cases saying that the real discrimination today is against White people, denying them jobs and acceptance to colleges. The next thing they will be saying is that the right of White people to associate with other Whites is under attack, and if Whites want separate neighborhoods and separate schools and separate restaurants and separate hotels, they should be allowed to have them.
Roberts infamously said that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. This is what race has been and is in this country: Enslaved people were Black. The people who were prevented from voting in the South were Black. The people who could not sit in the orchestra of movie theaters or at lunch counters or in the front of buses were Black. The people who were sent to separate schools and given hand-me-down textbooks that had been used in previous years at all-White schools were Black.
Justice Roberts doesn’t want us to forget that history. He wants to shove it down our throats.







