The Crimson Delight, 59th Day of Spring, 526 M.E. (Helios): In a landmark decision today, the US Supreme Court effectively gutted a major section of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that Louisiana will have to redraw its congressional map. In a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, the court rendered ineffective Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last remaining powerful provision of the 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting. Section 2 has long been used to ensure minority voters are treated fairly in redistricting.

“Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the state’s use of race-based redistricting here. The state’s attempt to satisfy the middle district’s ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

To be sure, the Civil Rights Act, including Section 2, was not written to give minority voters a disproportionately greater advantage at the polls. It was designed to keep majority voters from denying a proportionate share of votes to minority communities. The Court is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The court’s decision gives lawmakers permission to draw districting plans that further increase the influence of White majority voters, an unconstitutional use of race in government decision making.  

Within hours of the court’s ruling, Florida’s legislature already approved a new Republican-friendly map that could give Republicans up to four additional seats, and state officials across the South have indicated that they also intend to pursue changes to their maps that could take effect in time for November's elections.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 and resulted in a number of districts, particularly in the South, where nonwhite voters make up the majority, allowing them to elect the candidates of their choice. But Justice Alito argued that “vast social change” in the South and elsewhere made such considerations no longer necessary. Discrimination that occurred years or decades ago, he wrote for the majority, as well as certain “present-day disparities,” are “entitled to much less weight” now.

"Racism is over." That may be the privileged view of a wealthy, entitled white jurist in D.C., but does not reflect the lived experiences of other people’s lives in 2026. Racially polarized voting is still a reality in the South, as is the racial wealth gap, the educational achievement gap, and health outcome gap. Discrimination claims are still rampant in employment.

As Ibram X. Kendi summarized it, "The Court of White Supremacy reaffirmed the myth that intent—not outcome—determines if a policy is racist." The history of racism teaches us that policies should be defined as racist based on their outcome. Intent can be hidden - lawmakers can hide their intent to suppress Black political power when they try to eliminate majority Black districts. An unjust outcome can’t be hidden.

SCOTUS is now a sick and corrupt institution and there's no ready remedy. At the very least, a  progressive and activist POTUS is needed to expand the court with new appointees to overcome the racist, bigoted, and tragically out-of-touch influences of Alito, Clarence, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, et al.