A major decision was handed down by the Supreme Court this week that upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but the ruling was not the exact outcome Democrats had been hoping.
The Court upheld the law; it struck down gerrymandered maps based on race, which, according to Justice Samuel Alito, "forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids."
Rep. Ro Khanna even admitted that “technically,” the Court upheld the law, then proceeded to claim that the law had been dismantled. The framing by Democrats is quite possibly the most dishonest narrative we are hearing out of Washington this week, and that is saying something.
At question was the legitimacy of gerrymandering maps in Louisiana that added a “majority-black” district. The Court, according to a New York Times report, struck down the maps.
We have all seen how out of control gerrymandering has been during this cycle, but this district is gerrymandering on steroids, specifically creating a district of minority voters, which is unconstitutional.
The ruling, in addition to striking down the maps, raised the evidentiary bar for Section 2, requiring that plaintiffs must show "a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.”
This has now established that race-conscious redistricting can violate equal protection.
The ruling also modified the Gingles test, which was established in 1986 via Thornburg v. Gingles. This is a three-part framework established by the Supreme Court to determine violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The ruling DID NOT strike down Section 2 of the VRA. The ruling DID NOT declare Section 2 of the VRA as unconstitutional. Quite the opposite, actually. The ruling reaffirms the purpose of the VRA to ensure it is not bastardized into activism.
Justice Alito addressed this in the majority opinion, stating:
"Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it."
After calling out the lower courts for applying Section 2 precedents in a way that encouraged “very race-based discrimination,” he added:
"Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context."
In Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, she wrote:
"The Court's decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity."
That is activism, not a legal opinion. The law is quite clear about this, as is outlined in Section 2, subsection a, of the VRA, which states:
“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).”
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) had what was a fairly typical reaction from the left, stating:
"Today's decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act and is designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all over this country to elect their candidate of choice."
I could give you the reaction of 100 more Democrats, but they were all along the same lines. The table below gives you an idea of how badly this decision is being misrepresented:
| What the Court Actually Did | What Democrats Claim It Did |
|---|---|
| Upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The law remains on the books. | "Gutted" the VRA. Called it "all but a dead letter." (Kagan dissent, NAACP LDF, Congressional Black Caucus) |
| Struck down ONE Louisiana map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. | "Open season on Black voters across this country." "An outright power grab." (Rep. Yvette Clarke, CBC Chair) |
| Raised the evidentiary bar for Section 2 claims. Plaintiffs must now show "a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred." | "Return to Jim Crow." "Setting back the time clock to pre-1965 levels." (Multiple Democrats, Transformative Justice Coalition) |
| Ruled that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing district maps. "Allowing race to play any part in government decisionmaking represents a departure from the constitutional rule." (Alito) | "Undermining multiracial democracy because they fear it." (Rep. Ro Khanna) |
| Did NOT require a finding of intentional discrimination. Established that "circumstances" must "give rise to a strong inference" of it. | "Designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all over this country to elect their candidate of choice." Called SCOTUS "illegitimate." (Rep. Hakeem Jeffries) |
| Left Section 2 intact. Corrected how lower courts had been interpreting and applying it. "The court did not overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act." (Heritage Foundation / Christian Science Monitor) | "Although the Supreme Court technically upheld Section II of VRA, it will effectively dilute the voting power of Black Americans." (Rep. Ro Khanna — admitting it was upheld in the same sentence he claims it wasn't) |
| The left column is what happened. The right column is what Democrats want you to believe happened. The Voting Rights Act was upheld. Section 2 remains law. The Court struck down one map in one state and raised the bar for proving racial discrimination in redistricting. Democrats are calling it Jim Crow, an illegitimate court, and the death of democracy. Rep. Ro Khanna admitted the law was upheld in his own post — then spent the rest of it pretending it wasn't.
Sources: Supreme Court opinion (608 U.S. ___, 2026), SCOTUSblog, Christian Science Monitor, Heritage Foundation, CNBC, NPR, CNN, NAACP LDF, Congressional Black Caucus press conference, Rep. Ro Khanna (X post, April 29, 2026). |
|
The Christian Science Monitor broke it down best, reporting:
"The court did not overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; they simply said that the way certain lower courts had been interpreting and applying it was incorrect."
Sadly, that has been the norm over the last decade in our lower courts. We have activists on the bench who often rule with ideology over the law.
One more point here before we move forward, and that is the coverage on the ruling by NPR, which said this:
"…paved the way for the largest-ever drop in representation by Black members of Congress.”
Do you know how to solve this issue? You get more minorities to run for office. You don’t draw districts based on race.
But part of the problem is that when you have a minority run for office as a conservative, they are hit with every racist slander known to mankind. I, for one, have been insisting that the GOP needs to draw in more minority conservatives if it wants to stay relevant, but I understand why they don’t want to run for office.
Look at the slurs thrown at Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) for being a black conservative. Dr. Ben Carson is another example. We can also look at Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL). If you are a black conservative, you'd better have skin like kevlar if you want to run for office. Democrats want more minorities in Congress, but only if they are Democrats.
The reaction from Rep. Ro Khanna makes my case for me. He literally says that the Court upheld Section 2, then starts stomping his feet because he did not like the legal opinion that came with it…
Although the Supreme Court technically upheld Section II of VRA, it will effectively dilute the voting power of Black Americans.
Trump, Vance, Republican Justices, & Republicans in Congress are undermining multiracial democracy because they fear it.
They will not prevail
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) April 29, 2026
The line from his post on X that I really want to dive into is: "Undermining multiracial democracy because they fear it."
If Khanna can answer me this one question, I will shut my mouth on the subject: If you are now drawing district lines solely based on race, how is that “multiracial democracy?”
If you want a true multiracial democracy, districts will have a mix of races, not be created solely because there is a pocket of black voters that you want to pander to.
What is even more insulting about his post is the naming of Trump, Vance, the conservative justices, and Republicans in Congress. He acts as though the right is the only party gerrymandering maps.
Mr. Khanna, I would highly encourage you to look at the district map of Illinois before this latest round of nonsense started. I dare you to tell me that map is not gerrymandered to boost Democrat representation.
Ideally, districts will never be drawn by race, but will be an accurate reflection of constituents in the city.
If you have a state with 50% Democrats, 35% Republicans, and 15% independent voters, your seats in Congress should reflect that. If this were the true breakdown of the state, and it had 10 congressional seats, five of them should be Democrat, three to four should be Republicans, and one or two districts would be true battleground districts within the state.
This is not brain surgery, yet we don’t seem to have a single state in this country that has a fair reflection of its voter base.
For either side to throw darts over gerrymandered maps is utterly ridiculous because, as I covered in my deep dive on April 22, 2026, both sides are guilty (click here to read that full report).
I was openly against my home state of Texas redrawing its maps mid-decade to flip seats. I thought it was opening the door to a losing battle, and I was correct.
But the problem in this country started long before Gov. Greg Abbott decided to grant Trump’s request to gerrymander the maps. States like New York, Illinois, and California were already significantly tilted in favor of Democrats, and that was just the tip of the iceberg.
As noted, Republican states were no better. In North Carolina, Republicans have about 51% of the vote, yet more than 70% of the seats. South Carolina has six of its seven seats manned by Republicans, while generally winning about 58% of the vote (via Independent Voter News).
This, sadly, is just the way the game is played these days. Whatever party has the majority after the census comes out looks for the advantage.
The gerrymandering that is going on now, however, has opened up a nasty can of worms that may never get the lid put back on. If we are going to start redrawing districts based on who is in the White House, we will never have fair maps again in this country.
Simply put, everyone needs to stop. Right now, state legislatures are literally engineering elections. That is in no way, shape, or form free and fair, and is certainly not an example of democracy in action.
The one curiosity for me in all of this is why Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the majority in this ruling.
I ask that because in Allen v. Milligan (2023), Roberts wrote the majority opinion that sided with minority voters in Alabama, calling for the state to create a secondary majority-black district.
In this case, Roberts joined Alito’s opinion, but he did not write a concurring opinion on why he changed his view.
This will only fuel the fire for the left to expand the court. In fact, it already has, as well as calling for term limits for justices.
Democrats were going to complain about this ruling regardless, but the lack of explanation by Roberts was inexcusable. All he did was feed the Court’s critics the ammunition they needed and wanted to call the integrity of the Court into question.
But that does not change the fact that Democrats are now crying about gerrymandering while celebrating blatant gerrymandering in California and Virginia. Barack Obama was literally telling Virginians to pull the lever to approve a gerrymandered map.
Here is the bottom line: voting districts should never be drawn by race, period. A district should not be drawn to benefit black voters, white voters, Hispanic voters, or any ethnic group. That, by its very definition, violates Section 2 of the VRA.
All the Supreme Court did in this ruling was uphold and protect Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Everything else you are hearing is nothing but noise. It’s being said to create outrage, chaos, and a host of other negative emotions. This is all by design because that anger is what drives the Democrat Party to success.
