THURSDAY: How did it [ever] get this far?

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2026

The Louisiana congressional district case: Good luck trying to understand yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.   

We refer to the ruling in the recent series of court cases involving the attempt to create an acceptable set of House districts in Louisiana. There is no doubt that the ruling may have significant consequences, and not just in Louisiana. 

But what the heck did the ruling hold? And what legal reasoning was offered?

Last evening, we were struck by the difficulty cable news hosts were having as they tried to explain the ruling. That was true on the PBS NewsHour, but also on CNN's Laura Coates Live, whose host started off like this:

COATES (4/29/26): My opening statement tonight: 

Today, six justices all but threw away the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, they left the words on the paper, but they erased the meaning, the way poll taxes and literacy tests and jellybean counting tried to negate the 15th Amendment that gave Black people the right to vote. 

Why? Because voting is the single most important power in a democracy, not just the act of going to the polls and filling in some bubbles. No. It's the ability to vote for your candidate of choice.

Already, that presentation was rather fuzzy. Coates continued as shown:

COATES (continuing directly): Now, you are not entitled to vote for the winner, but gerrymandering districts can mean that your power is so watered down that you never even had a chance to choose who represents you or pretends to. And to Louisiana. The court struck down its map today, saying that lawmakers illegally used race to draw a majority Black district.

At the heart of the ruling was Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act that LBJ signed. And before I explain Section 2, why don't you listen to what LBJ said when he signed it into law?

PRESIDENT JOHNSON (1965): Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American in his heart can justify.

COATES: "Ensure them the right to vote." Section 2, it tried to prevent racial gerrymandering precisely because it diluted voting power. And that's now all but out the window...   

When LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act into law, it was indeed intended to ensure the right to vote for the nation's black citizens. There would be no more "poll taxes and literacy tests and jellybean counting" as an array of Southern states tried to keep an old world alive. 

That said: 

Whatever the eventual result of yesterday's ruling may turn out to be, the ruling doesn't mean, in the most obvious sense, that states can return to the practices which deny citizens the right to vote. 

Black citizens of Louisiana will be able to vote for president and for governor. They'll be able to vote for senator for the congressional representative from their district. 

President Johnson's statement stands. The issue here is different—and journalists are already having a hard time explaining what it is.  

For the record, Section 2 of the VRA was extremely brief in its initial form. This is what Section 2 said when the VRA was signed into law:  

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. 

Way back then, that was all that Section 2 said—and given the gruesome practices still in effect in various states, it was a long overdue pushback against the destructive ways of the past.

Will tomorrow's ruling turn out to be newly destructive? That where the current debate needs to start. And by the way, the VRA's original Section 2 has long since been amended. It's been augmented by additional language—by language which is perhaps rather fuzzy, as congressional language can be.  

Our journalists are already struggling with the task of explaining yesterday's ruling. A lot of heat is going to be generated, though perhaps a bit less light.  

People feel strongly about this matter; there's no reason why they shouldn't. Results of this ruling may turn out to be highly undesirable, depending on your viewpoint. 

That said:

Our nation, which is falling apart, currently tends to work in accord with the brilliant anthropological framework given voice by Professor Brabender:

Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit.

In our view: In its basic news report, the Washington Post did a good job summarizing the string of recent court cases in Louisiana which brought us to this place.