Controversial rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court in the last several weeks have thrust redistricting into the spotlight.
Districts have been gerrymandered for decades to favor Democrats, now they are crying foul. Many states in New England have between 38-49% Republican voters but have no seats at the table, since Dems have gerrymandered to their own political advantage, like in CA.
Thank you for this brief but informative analysis on redistricting. The problem is how to get the broad middle of voters who dwell between small L liberal and small C conservative to read this.
Democrats have been gerrymandering their Blue states for decades (e.g., all of New England), and the Republicans finally decide to do the same to their Red states. The Democrats react in outrage and panic, to the point of attempting clearly illegal acts in Virginia.
The best outcome is that Democrats lose any chance of becoming a majority for decades.
Agree that this is an unpleasant business just making politics even more tribal but at least the Louisiana court decision stops race based preferential voting and that can only be a good thing!
We have a similar phenomenon in Britain. Overseen by a quango named, The Boundary Commission.
The real problem is that most government employees are by default left of centre. There is a permanent in-built Left bias to districts. In Britain, Keir Starmer's present government is the result. The combined Right vote in July 2024 was bigger than Labour's. What did we get? Islamist Socialism.
Everyone seems to overlook that the Census Bureau admitted in 2022 that the 2020 count was flawed, undercounting in red state and over counting in blue states, leading to a misappropriation of congressional seats in the initial redistricting. Now undergoing an adjustment to fix it.
“As to his ethnicity or national origin, a politician cannot usually deceive his public. If he is a Ruritanian he has to admit it and bray loudly that he is inordinately proud of it, thus securing the votes at least of nitwit Ruritanians.”— Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich (1968)
Under segregation, black Americans generally shared a common experience of being second-class citizens. That is no longer the case, but the supporters of segregated voting districts and racial preferences in hiring and college admissions would have us believe that nothing has really changed. Racial gerrymandering advocates today assume that black voters are essentially fungible and share identical political preferences. That is not only false but insulting, and this Supreme Court corrective couldn’t come soon enough. — Jason L. Riley, The Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2026
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. — Ayn Rand (1963)
The recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Louisiana v. Callais has produced the latest paroxysm on the political left. In a 92-page opinion, the Court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that had been drawn explicitly on the basis of race, using Census data to cluster precincts with high percentages of residents who identified as “black” into a district designed to favor a candidate of the same skin color. Critics say the Court’s real offense is its reinterpretation of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that provides that states may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing districts. Now the Court says that plaintiffs must now show intentional discrimination rather than simply point to “disparate impact.” 1
Many political activists and commentators (mostly on the left) are fond of stating that “systemic” racism permeates our nation and its institutions. In one sense they are correct. Whatever the long-term impact of Callais, one powerful instrument for perpetuating racial division for now remains intact: the decennial U.S. Census.
This essay suggests a radical reform: abolish racial and ethnic classifications in the Census and on all official forms. Forcing people into identity pigeonholes based on ancestry, physical characteristics, or ancestral language sustains division and neo-tribalism. It can yield political advantage for some, but it has harmed the country by sustaining racial or ethnic identity that harms the country. Here is some history.
Before the 2010 count, the Census Bureau announced that, after more than a century, it would no longer use the word “Negro” to describe black Americans on its surveys. Instead, respondents would be offered “black” or “African-American.” I will address “black” later; my quarrel here is with “African-American” as a racial or ethnic term. Africa is vast and internally diverse. People from Ghana differ from the Xhosa in South Africa as markedly as Scots differ from Greeks. Egyptians, Algerians, and Berbers in countries along the North African Mediterranean coast have been classified as Caucasian. What, then, of Afrikaners, many of whose families have lived in South Africa for nearly fifteen generations? A student in community college where I was teaching objected to being labeled an “African” or even “Nigerian.” She wanted to be known simply as “American,” having made a effort to become a U.S. citizen.
Racial categories in the Census arose from the three-fifths compromise in the original Constitution. The Census was needed to apportion seats in the House of Representatives, and slaveholding states wanted their enslaved populations fully counted, while others argued that those who could not vote should not be counted at all. The compromise counted three-fifths of “all other persons”, which meant the enslaved population, for apportionment purposes, and because slave status largely overlapped with being black or “colored,” the Census built race into its classifications. After the Civil War, the principle of hypodescent—the “one-drop rule”—was used to support Jim Crow laws. That notion rests on the insulting assumption that a parent or other ancestor of supposedly lower status contaminates the “blood” of the other parent, and its continued official use keeps alive the notion that some “races” are inherently superior, while any detectable ancestry from an “inferior” group consigns a person to lower status.
Historically, the Census used “white” and “colored” throughout the nineteenth century. “Negro” became standard in the early twentieth century, and later “black, African Am., or Negro” appeared as a combined category. Many politicians found it advantageous to treat racial and ethnic groups as voting blocs so the categories of such groups proliferated.
Those who had endured legal segregation and other formal disabilities had legitimate grievances, and at one time it may have been necessary to take race into account in order to design remedies. But it has been roughly a half-century since any United States or territories endorsed racial segregation in law or public policy. Private prejudice still exists and always will in a collectivist culture, especially among the foolish and small-minded. Human beings rely heavily on sight; visual aesthetics tend to dominate other senses, which is why beauty pageants and telegenic news anchors flourish. Individuals, however, retain the right to choose their associates on whatever basis they wish. So long as government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin—and individuals do not do so under color of law—the freedom of association should be left largely untouched.
State and federal governments have a legitimate interest in removing barriers to commerce. Public accommodations and large employers that practice racial exclusion can impede commerce and may be forbidden to do so. Too often, however, the methods used to combat such practices rely on illusory group “rights” rather than individual rights, and social engineering by government tends to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.
As for “black,” it is striking that some who so identify have lighter complexions than many considered “white.” Of course, the label has come to reflect more than skin tone. It calls to mind Kate Chopin’s classic short story “Désirée’s Baby,” an early and still powerful piece of anti-racist fiction by a Louisiana writer whose work would make useful required reading for secondary (and possibly late elementary) school students.
It might be soon too late to reform the 2030 Census, if not already. But reform might be effective if enough of us realized the continued harm segregating persons by race in such an important process, and so write their Senator or U. S. Representative to that effect.
Districts have been gerrymandered for decades to favor Democrats, now they are crying foul. Many states in New England have between 38-49% Republican voters but have no seats at the table, since Dems have gerrymandered to their own political advantage, like in CA.
Thank you for this brief but informative analysis on redistricting. The problem is how to get the broad middle of voters who dwell between small L liberal and small C conservative to read this.
Democrats have been gerrymandering their Blue states for decades (e.g., all of New England), and the Republicans finally decide to do the same to their Red states. The Democrats react in outrage and panic, to the point of attempting clearly illegal acts in Virginia.
The best outcome is that Democrats lose any chance of becoming a majority for decades.
Agree that this is an unpleasant business just making politics even more tribal but at least the Louisiana court decision stops race based preferential voting and that can only be a good thing!
We have a similar phenomenon in Britain. Overseen by a quango named, The Boundary Commission.
The real problem is that most government employees are by default left of centre. There is a permanent in-built Left bias to districts. In Britain, Keir Starmer's present government is the result. The combined Right vote in July 2024 was bigger than Labour's. What did we get? Islamist Socialism.
Everyone seems to overlook that the Census Bureau admitted in 2022 that the 2020 count was flawed, undercounting in red state and over counting in blue states, leading to a misappropriation of congressional seats in the initial redistricting. Now undergoing an adjustment to fix it.
We should have 10,000 congressmen. Pay them $10,000 each. Increase representatives dilute their individual power .
Hmm. Interesting!
“As to his ethnicity or national origin, a politician cannot usually deceive his public. If he is a Ruritanian he has to admit it and bray loudly that he is inordinately proud of it, thus securing the votes at least of nitwit Ruritanians.”— Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich (1968)
Under segregation, black Americans generally shared a common experience of being second-class citizens. That is no longer the case, but the supporters of segregated voting districts and racial preferences in hiring and college admissions would have us believe that nothing has really changed. Racial gerrymandering advocates today assume that black voters are essentially fungible and share identical political preferences. That is not only false but insulting, and this Supreme Court corrective couldn’t come soon enough. — Jason L. Riley, The Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2026
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. — Ayn Rand (1963)
_______________________________________________________
The recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Louisiana v. Callais has produced the latest paroxysm on the political left. In a 92-page opinion, the Court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that had been drawn explicitly on the basis of race, using Census data to cluster precincts with high percentages of residents who identified as “black” into a district designed to favor a candidate of the same skin color. Critics say the Court’s real offense is its reinterpretation of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that provides that states may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing districts. Now the Court says that plaintiffs must now show intentional discrimination rather than simply point to “disparate impact.” 1
Many political activists and commentators (mostly on the left) are fond of stating that “systemic” racism permeates our nation and its institutions. In one sense they are correct. Whatever the long-term impact of Callais, one powerful instrument for perpetuating racial division for now remains intact: the decennial U.S. Census.
This essay suggests a radical reform: abolish racial and ethnic classifications in the Census and on all official forms. Forcing people into identity pigeonholes based on ancestry, physical characteristics, or ancestral language sustains division and neo-tribalism. It can yield political advantage for some, but it has harmed the country by sustaining racial or ethnic identity that harms the country. Here is some history.
Before the 2010 count, the Census Bureau announced that, after more than a century, it would no longer use the word “Negro” to describe black Americans on its surveys. Instead, respondents would be offered “black” or “African-American.” I will address “black” later; my quarrel here is with “African-American” as a racial or ethnic term. Africa is vast and internally diverse. People from Ghana differ from the Xhosa in South Africa as markedly as Scots differ from Greeks. Egyptians, Algerians, and Berbers in countries along the North African Mediterranean coast have been classified as Caucasian. What, then, of Afrikaners, many of whose families have lived in South Africa for nearly fifteen generations? A student in community college where I was teaching objected to being labeled an “African” or even “Nigerian.” She wanted to be known simply as “American,” having made a effort to become a U.S. citizen.
Racial categories in the Census arose from the three-fifths compromise in the original Constitution. The Census was needed to apportion seats in the House of Representatives, and slaveholding states wanted their enslaved populations fully counted, while others argued that those who could not vote should not be counted at all. The compromise counted three-fifths of “all other persons”, which meant the enslaved population, for apportionment purposes, and because slave status largely overlapped with being black or “colored,” the Census built race into its classifications. After the Civil War, the principle of hypodescent—the “one-drop rule”—was used to support Jim Crow laws. That notion rests on the insulting assumption that a parent or other ancestor of supposedly lower status contaminates the “blood” of the other parent, and its continued official use keeps alive the notion that some “races” are inherently superior, while any detectable ancestry from an “inferior” group consigns a person to lower status.
Historically, the Census used “white” and “colored” throughout the nineteenth century. “Negro” became standard in the early twentieth century, and later “black, African Am., or Negro” appeared as a combined category. Many politicians found it advantageous to treat racial and ethnic groups as voting blocs so the categories of such groups proliferated.
Those who had endured legal segregation and other formal disabilities had legitimate grievances, and at one time it may have been necessary to take race into account in order to design remedies. But it has been roughly a half-century since any United States or territories endorsed racial segregation in law or public policy. Private prejudice still exists and always will in a collectivist culture, especially among the foolish and small-minded. Human beings rely heavily on sight; visual aesthetics tend to dominate other senses, which is why beauty pageants and telegenic news anchors flourish. Individuals, however, retain the right to choose their associates on whatever basis they wish. So long as government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin—and individuals do not do so under color of law—the freedom of association should be left largely untouched.
State and federal governments have a legitimate interest in removing barriers to commerce. Public accommodations and large employers that practice racial exclusion can impede commerce and may be forbidden to do so. Too often, however, the methods used to combat such practices rely on illusory group “rights” rather than individual rights, and social engineering by government tends to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.
As for “black,” it is striking that some who so identify have lighter complexions than many considered “white.” Of course, the label has come to reflect more than skin tone. It calls to mind Kate Chopin’s classic short story “Désirée’s Baby,” an early and still powerful piece of anti-racist fiction by a Louisiana writer whose work would make useful required reading for secondary (and possibly late elementary) school students.
It might be soon too late to reform the 2030 Census, if not already. But reform might be effective if enough of us realized the continued harm segregating persons by race in such an important process, and so write their Senator or U. S. Representative to that effect.
No. 24-109, 608 U.S. _____ (2026) ↩︎
I appreciate this breakdown. If only more people knew this stuff and politicians didn’t act like they don’t.
Thank you for clarifying this situation for me.