The Supreme Court understood its job perfectly well. It was asked whether drawing districts by race violates the 14th amendment. It concluded, not unreasonably, that it did, and in the process reverted the VRA to something closer to its original form from before Congress's 1982 amendment. That the previous precedent had stood for long years and that it was not outright overturned is no absolute defense. If it were, then Brown, which narrowed Plessy, would have been wrongly decided. If the people believe that districts drawn by race should be permissible, then they should, using the very methods you highlight in this piece, elect representatives who will push for a constitutional amendment.
Interesting argument but the legal history doesn’t quite support it. Congress amended Section 2 in 1982 specifically to replace the intent standard from Mobile v. Bolden with a results test. That wasn’t a court interpretation. That was a deliberate legislative override with bipartisan support, including from the Reagan administration. The Callais majority effectively reinstated the standard Congress explicitly rejected 44 years ago. Whether you agree with that outcome or not, it’s worth being precise about what happened.
The Brown comparison is worth thinking about more carefully too. Brown said the state cannot use race to exclude people from public life. Callais says the state cannot use race to include people in political representation. Those may share a constitutional logic but they point in very different directions for the communities affected.
Sure, but the Court's job is to rule on the constitutional logic, not purely on the impact on communities. They concluded that the legislative override, regardless of how widely-supported it was, was unconstitutional. Also, racial-representation in redistricting is zero-sum. To include based on race is to exclude based on race. In the redistricting that triggered Callais, black voters may have gotten a safe district, but white voters had their communities cracked to achieve this. For those voters, the decision points in the same direction as Brown.
You’re right that the Court’s job is constitutional logic. I respect the institution even when I disagree with the outcome.
What I keep coming back to is the pattern. Shelby County removed preclearance in 2013. No replacement. Rucho closed federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims in 2019. No replacement. Now Callais raises the evidentiary bar on Section 2 to a level that the Campaign Legal Center says makes it virtually impossible to challenge discriminatory maps unless you can prove the state intended to discriminate on race rather than party. And as we’ve seen since Rucho, states have learned to frame everything as partisan rather than racial. So the intent test isn’t just hard to meet in theory.
It’s hard to meet in a world where the legal system has already given states the language to avoid it. I’m not arguing the Court got the constitutional logic wrong. I’m pointing out that the practical effect is a framework where systemic discrimination becomes very difficult to challenge through any available legal mechanism. That’s worth grappling with regardless of where you stand on the doctrine.
On the impact, you and I are in full agreement. I would note that Rucho cut both ways. States would argue that racial gerrymanders were partisan while challengers would argue that partisan gerrymanders were racial. As for the future, Congress could fix the problem tomorrow if they legislated against gerrymandering. Unfortunately, this is, in a sense, all downstream of congress's ever-increasing dysfunction and gridlock. I can only hope that public frustration eventually forces Congress to act.
This is where I think we actually land in the same place. You’re right that Rucho cuts both ways and that Congress has the power to fix this tomorrow. The dysfunction downstream is the real problem. I appreciate the exchange. This is what public discourse is supposed to look like. Two people who disagree on the doctrine but agree on the impact, working through it in good faith. Quincy and the world could use more of this. Thank you so much for subscribing!
Likewise, I much enjoyed it as well! Public discourse is the lifeblood of democracy. I may not agree with everything you write, but I always find your work to be thought-provoking in a way that articles rarely are. You have a knack for teasing out connections that others have missed.
P.S. I do hope that the community finally wins in Quincy. I'm from a minority culture myself, so I know the struggle of missing school to observe holidays that the wider community does not. Not recognizing a holiday that 40% of students observe is just absurd.
I wonder what the current GPA is in Quincy schools in general and what is the High school scholastic curriculum ? I will probably be able to AI the questions. Great read Russ.
The Supreme Court understood its job perfectly well. It was asked whether drawing districts by race violates the 14th amendment. It concluded, not unreasonably, that it did, and in the process reverted the VRA to something closer to its original form from before Congress's 1982 amendment. That the previous precedent had stood for long years and that it was not outright overturned is no absolute defense. If it were, then Brown, which narrowed Plessy, would have been wrongly decided. If the people believe that districts drawn by race should be permissible, then they should, using the very methods you highlight in this piece, elect representatives who will push for a constitutional amendment.
Interesting argument but the legal history doesn’t quite support it. Congress amended Section 2 in 1982 specifically to replace the intent standard from Mobile v. Bolden with a results test. That wasn’t a court interpretation. That was a deliberate legislative override with bipartisan support, including from the Reagan administration. The Callais majority effectively reinstated the standard Congress explicitly rejected 44 years ago. Whether you agree with that outcome or not, it’s worth being precise about what happened.
The Brown comparison is worth thinking about more carefully too. Brown said the state cannot use race to exclude people from public life. Callais says the state cannot use race to include people in political representation. Those may share a constitutional logic but they point in very different directions for the communities affected.
Sure, but the Court's job is to rule on the constitutional logic, not purely on the impact on communities. They concluded that the legislative override, regardless of how widely-supported it was, was unconstitutional. Also, racial-representation in redistricting is zero-sum. To include based on race is to exclude based on race. In the redistricting that triggered Callais, black voters may have gotten a safe district, but white voters had their communities cracked to achieve this. For those voters, the decision points in the same direction as Brown.
You’re right that the Court’s job is constitutional logic. I respect the institution even when I disagree with the outcome.
What I keep coming back to is the pattern. Shelby County removed preclearance in 2013. No replacement. Rucho closed federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims in 2019. No replacement. Now Callais raises the evidentiary bar on Section 2 to a level that the Campaign Legal Center says makes it virtually impossible to challenge discriminatory maps unless you can prove the state intended to discriminate on race rather than party. And as we’ve seen since Rucho, states have learned to frame everything as partisan rather than racial. So the intent test isn’t just hard to meet in theory.
It’s hard to meet in a world where the legal system has already given states the language to avoid it. I’m not arguing the Court got the constitutional logic wrong. I’m pointing out that the practical effect is a framework where systemic discrimination becomes very difficult to challenge through any available legal mechanism. That’s worth grappling with regardless of where you stand on the doctrine.
On the impact, you and I are in full agreement. I would note that Rucho cut both ways. States would argue that racial gerrymanders were partisan while challengers would argue that partisan gerrymanders were racial. As for the future, Congress could fix the problem tomorrow if they legislated against gerrymandering. Unfortunately, this is, in a sense, all downstream of congress's ever-increasing dysfunction and gridlock. I can only hope that public frustration eventually forces Congress to act.
This is where I think we actually land in the same place. You’re right that Rucho cuts both ways and that Congress has the power to fix this tomorrow. The dysfunction downstream is the real problem. I appreciate the exchange. This is what public discourse is supposed to look like. Two people who disagree on the doctrine but agree on the impact, working through it in good faith. Quincy and the world could use more of this. Thank you so much for subscribing!
Likewise, I much enjoyed it as well! Public discourse is the lifeblood of democracy. I may not agree with everything you write, but I always find your work to be thought-provoking in a way that articles rarely are. You have a knack for teasing out connections that others have missed.
P.S. I do hope that the community finally wins in Quincy. I'm from a minority culture myself, so I know the struggle of missing school to observe holidays that the wider community does not. Not recognizing a holiday that 40% of students observe is just absurd.
I wonder what the current GPA is in Quincy schools in general and what is the High school scholastic curriculum ? I will probably be able to AI the questions. Great read Russ.