Louisiana v. Callais is a redistricting earthquake:
ā¢ Each district drawn that used race is now unconstitutional.
ā¢ Section 2 can be used to challenge majority-minority districts.
ā¢ Disparate impact theory is unconstitutional.Let’s break it down. š§µhttps://t.co/FEmvf7aSZ8
ā Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) April 29, 2026
The engine was Thornburg v. Gingles (1986).
Activists used Gingles to argue that if a majority-minority district could be drawn, and voting patterns were racially polarized, Section 2 effectively required the state to draw it.
The result was racial mapmaking by lawsuit.
ā Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) April 29, 2026
Second, Section 2 can now be used to challenge majority-minority districts.
For decades, activists used Section 2 to force those districts into existence.
Now litigants can argue the opposite: the VRA did not require racial sorting. https://t.co/kQMBxv28vW
ā Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) April 29, 2026
Third, disparate-impact theory just took a major hit.
The Fifteenth Amendment targets intentional racial discrimination in voting.
It does not authorize courts to treat every racial disparity as a command to redraw maps by race. https://t.co/8ISIMYYkZK
ā Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) April 29, 2026
Compare that to Democrat heavy New England, which has successfully denied Republican representation across its many districts over the past several Congresses. pic.twitter.com/CjLoNLCHuv
ā Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) April 29, 2026
The path forward is clear:
Challenge race-based districts.
Force plaintiffs to prove race, not politics.
Reject disparate-impact mapmaking.
The VRA protects voters from discrimination. It does not carve America into racial spoils for Democrat advantage.
ā Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) April 29, 2026