If you thought the Democratic Party was insufferable now, just wait. It may get a whole lot worse.
The Supreme Court is poised to rehear Louisiana v. Callais, a case involving revised Congressional maps that created two Black-majority districts in a state where Blacks are 1/3 of the population. Race-based gerrymandering falls under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a tool that allows challenges to racial discrimination in voting laws.
If -- and that's a big if -- SCOTUS limits or redefines Section 2, it could spell bad news for Democrats.
I cannot stress to you enough how earth-shattering it would be for the Supreme Court to strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
— Christian Heiens 🏛 (@ChristianHeiens) August 2, 2025
The electoral cornerstone of the Postwar Liberal Consensus would be gone overnight, and with it, the Democratic Party's ability to contest the… pic.twitter.com/sRKpr85UZR
The entire post reads:
The electoral cornerstone of the Postwar Liberal Consensus would be gone overnight, and with it, the Democratic Party's ability to contest the House of Representatives as we know it.
Between this and the potential mid-decade redistricting in a few other GOP-controlled states, Democrats would not be able to flip back the House of Representatives even if they ruthlessly gerrymandered every Republican out of California.
This means Democrats could lose up to 25 House Seats.
BREAKING: Democrats could lose as many as nearly 25 House seats if the Supreme Court moves forward with ending race-based gerrymandering. pic.twitter.com/06PMCvBw06
— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) August 2, 2025
OUCH.
you're not a Christian bro 😹
— Lightskin Sovereign (@lightskinsov) August 2, 2025
We're not sure what that has to do with Section 2, but okay.
“You aren’t a Christian unless you give Democrats free congressional seats.”
— Christian Heiens 🏛 (@ChristianHeiens) August 2, 2025
It’s all so tiresome. pic.twitter.com/VvjkK5FHls
So, so tiresome.
Perhaps even more important would be overturning Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which forced state senate seats to be apportioned according to population. That decision by the Warren court allowed urban centres to take over state governments, completely disenfranchising rural…
— Thomas Stephens (@t_a_stephens) August 2, 2025
This would be helpful, too.
Change the census to only count citizens and see how much the electoral map changes.
— Steve Vaughn (@RealSteveVaughn) August 2, 2025
It would change significantly.
Might be the best thing that could happen to them. Would remove many of the wildest voices in their party, and create a greater percentage of "moderate" districts, forcing them to compete more in the center rather than pandering ever harder to their social justice extremists.
— Who is John Locke? (@TX17ChuckWilson) August 2, 2025
He's probably right.
Race based gerrymandering is racist. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
— 𝐃𝐁 𝐂𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝕋𝕏 (@DBCooperTX) August 2, 2025
It sure is.
Section 2 is wild. “Majority-minority” districts being required in certain areas is nothing more than an identity politics game.
— Fred 🇺🇸 (@FSquared13) August 2, 2025
Dems love “equality” until it’s actually about equality and not their political power.
To Dems, 'equality' is 'heads we win, tales you lose.'
America shouldn’t be based on identity politics. It should be based on unifying ideals — like freedom and equality.
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) August 2, 2025
If you believe our political system should be carved up by race, then you are a racist. https://t.co/Ajs4bz77Q7
YUP.
Sold.
— Michael Quinn Sullivan 🇺🇸 (@MQSullivan) August 2, 2025
Note: per @Grok, “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301, prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”
DEMs’ congressional districts REQUIRE… https://t.co/kLpyO2vbEV
As always, the Democrats call their blatant racism 'anti-racist' and try to skirt the laws.
BTW--if R's are ruthlessly gerrymandered out of blue states but the R's hold on to power, that will swing the R's further right, since they no longer depend on blue R's for votes. https://t.co/1aLoYHNbXn
— Caesar (@caesar_pounce) August 2, 2025
He's correct.
Probably a 5-4 decision if it ends the gerrymandering in question. https://t.co/ey0qTSNTrU
— Oscar Von Reuenthal (@OscarVReuenthal) August 2, 2025
Probably.
Democrats never got rid of segregation completely...they just got better at hiding it. https://t.co/eCT5BA7KS8
— Digital_Sass (@TooMuchSassForX) August 2, 2025
And calling it what it isn't - 'quality.'
Join the conversation as a VIP Member