Playback speed:
The Virginia Christian Alliance continues our Constitutional Showdown series with an urgent examination of Louisiana v. Callais—a case that will either gut the Voting Rights Act or cement racial proportionality forever, unless the Supreme Court recovers the Third Way the Reconstruction Framers originally intended. The definition of the Third Way from a Christian and constitutional perspective is in the references and/or linked (Third Way detailed concept).
SCOTUS poised to gut Voting Rights Act—or cement racial proportionality forever.
The Reconstruction Framers’ Christian worldview charted a Third Way.
The Impossible Choice Louisiana Faces
On October 15, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could reshape American democracy for generations. Louisiana v. Callais asks a deceptively simple question:
Can states intentionally create majority-minority congressional districts to remedy racial discrimination without violating the Constitution’s prohibition on racial classifications?
The question matters because Louisiana finds itself caught in what the Heritage Foundation calls an “impossible” bind:
- In 2022, Louisiana drew a congressional map with only one majority-Black district (despite Black residents comprising 33% of the state’s population).
- Federal courts ruled this map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power.
- In 2024, Louisiana redrew the map to include a second majority-Black district to comply with the court order.
- White voters immediately sued, claiming the new map is unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
Louisiana argues it’s trapped: violate the Voting Rights Act, or violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The state now claims—abandoning its previous position—that ALL race-conscious redistricting is unconstitutional.
Civil rights groups counter that without race-conscious remedies, states will return to the systematic vote dilution that plagued the South for a century after Reconstruction.
Both sides offer false choices. The Reconstruction Framers embedded a Third Way in the Constitution itself—and recovering their original intent is the only path forward.
The Biblical Foundation: Individual Dignity Without Group Preferences
Before examining the constitutional issues, we establish the biblical framework. Scripture speaks clearly to both the dignity of every person AND the danger of partiality based on group identity.
Genesis 1:27 declares that God created humanity in His image—not as racial collectives, but as individual image-bearers. Every person, regardless of ethnicity, bears equal dignity before God. This theological truth undergirds the Constitution’s recognition of individual rights.
Leviticus 19:15 commands: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” God demands justice without favoritism in either direction. We cannot discriminate against minorities, nor can we show partiality toward them by mandating proportional outcomes.
This biblical principle—equal justice under law for individuals, not group-based outcomes—must guide our constitutional analysis.
What the 15th Amendment Framers Actually Intended
The Reconstruction Amendments—particularly the 15th Amendment—lie at the heart of this case. Understanding the Framers’ original intent is essential.
The 15th Amendment states clearly: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Notice the language: ‘shall not be DENIED or ABRIDGED.’
This is prohibition language, not mandate language. The Framers forbade states from discriminating against Black voters. They did NOT require states to engineer proportional racial outcomes in legislative representation.
The historical context confirms this interpretation. As the Heritage Foundation documents, the Reconstruction Framers knew Southern states would attempt to suppress Black voting through literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and other discriminatory devices. The 15th Amendment aimed to STOP these evils.
But the Framers never contemplated—and certainly never intended—that courts would require states to draw district lines primarily based on race to achieve proportional representation. Such race-conscious redistricting would have struck them as violating the very principle of equal protection they sought to establish.
Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment, explicitly stated that the amendment aimed to ensure equal protection of the laws—not preferential treatment. The 15th Amendment extended this principle specifically to voting rights.
Original Intent Is Clear: Prohibit racial discrimination in voting. Do not mandate racial proportionality in outcomes.
The Framers’ Christian Worldview Explains the Third Way
Why did the Reconstruction Framers choose prohibition language over mandate language? Why did they forbid racial discrimination without requiring proportional representation? The answer lies in their deeply Christian understanding of human nature, justice, and government.
The architects of the 14th and 15th Amendments—men like Senator Jacob Howard, Congressman John Bingham, Senator Charles Sumner, and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens—operated from a biblical worldview that shaped every aspect of the Reconstruction Amendments.
First, they believed in individual human dignity grounded in Genesis 1:27. God created humanity in His image—each person an individual soul before God, not merely a member of a racial collective. This theology explains why the 14th Amendment protects “persons” and guarantees “equal protection” to individuals, not racial groups. The Framers rejected the idea that citizens should be sorted into permanent racial categories with group-based entitlements.
When Senator Howard introduced the 14th Amendment, he grounded equal protection in the principle that all persons possess equal dignity and deserve equal treatment under law. This wasn’t abstract political theory—it was applied Christian anthropology.
Second, they understood the reality of sin and fallen human nature (Romans 3:23). The Reconstruction Framers weren’t naive idealists who believed good intentions would prevent discrimination. They knew that without accountability mechanisms, Southern states would systematically suppress Black voting. Human sinfulness—including racial prejudice—required constitutional guardrails.
This explains why they included enforcement provisions in both amendments. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and Section 2 of the 15th Amendment gave Congress power to pass “appropriate legislation” to prevent discrimination. The Framers created tools to stop evil, knowing that fallen humanity gravitates toward injustice without accountability.
Third, they applied Leviticus 19:15’s principle of justice without partiality. “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” The Framers understood that biblical justice means treating individuals equally under law—neither discriminating against minorities NOR showing them favoritism through group preferences.
This theology explains the 15th Amendment’s precise language. It prohibits denying the vote “on account of race”—stopping discrimination. But it doesn’t mandate that states engineer districts to achieve racial proportionality—which would constitute race-based favoritism. Both extremes violate the biblical standard of impartial justice.
Fourth, they rejected the idea that racial identity determines political representation. The Framers believed Christians of all races could represent one another because shared humanity and common principles matter more than skin color. They would have found absurd the modern assumption that only Black representatives can adequately represent Black constituents, as if race determines one’s capacity for just governance.
Galatians 3:28 teaches that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” in Christ—not erasing distinctions, but subordinating them to our common humanity and shared principles. The Reconstruction Framers applied this theology to civic life: citizens relate to government as individuals under law, not as permanent members of racialized political tribes.
This Christian worldview produced the Third Way embedded in the Reconstruction Amendments:
• Prohibit racial discrimination (because it’s sin and injustice)
• Create enforcement mechanisms (because fallen humanity requires accountability)
• Treat citizens as individuals, not racial groups (because of Genesis 1:27)
• Reject mandating proportional outcomes (because that’s racial favoritism, violating Leviticus 19:15)
The Framers chose prohibition over mandate because their biblical theology demanded it. They knew discrimination was evil and must be stopped. But they also knew that sorting citizens into racial categories and mandating group-based outcomes violates the principle that all stand equal before God and under law.
Modern courts departed from this framework in two directions: Conservatives who ignore the prohibition on discrimination, and liberals who impose racial proportionality mandates. Both extremes abandon the Framers’ Christian constitutional vision.
The Third Way isn’t a modern compromise—it’s originalism. It’s what the Reconstruction Framers actually intended, grounded in the biblical worldview that shaped their constitutional design.
When Justice Kavanaugh asks whether race-based remedies need an “endpoint,” he echoes the Framers’ theology. Yes—because the Constitution, reflecting biblical principles, treats racial classifications as inherently suspect. They can be used temporarily to remedy proven discrimination, but they cannot become permanent features of governance. That would violate the very principle of individual dignity and equal protection the Framers sought to establish.
The Reconstruction Amendments embody applied Christian political theology: Stop discrimination, honor individual dignity, reject group-based preferences, ensure accountability for sin. This is the Third Way—and it’s what the Constitution has required all along.
The Constitutional Problem With Section 2 (Post-1982)
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 originally prohibited intentional discrimination in voting. This aligned perfectly with the 15th Amendment’s original meaning.
But in 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to ban voting practices that have a racially disproportionate “result” or “effect”—even without proof of discriminatory intent.
As the Heritage Foundation persuasively argues, this amendment raises serious constitutional questions. The 14th and 15th Amendments prohibit state disparate treatment on the basis of race. They do NOT prohibit mere disparate impact.
When Congress enacted Section 2’s disparate impact standard, it arguably exceeded its enforcement authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and Section 2 of the 15th Amendment. The Reconstruction Amendments authorize Congress to pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce their prohibitions—but Congress cannot create new constitutional rights or prohibitions that the amendments themselves don’t contain.
The Supreme Court established in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) that Congress’s enforcement power is “remedial” rather than “substantive.” Congress can remedy constitutional violations, but it cannot redefine what constitutes a violation.
Section 2’s disparate impact standard does exactly what Boerne forbids: it treats racially disproportionate outcomes as constitutional violations even when no discriminatory intent exists. This exceeds congressional authority.
The ‘Proportionality’ Trap
After the 1982 amendment, the obvious question became: How do courts determine if minority voting power has been “diluted”? Diluted compared to what?
The answer that emerged—through the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles and subsequent cases—was proportionality. If a minority group comprises 33% of a state’s population, it should have roughly 33% of the congressional seats.
But here’s the problem:
Section 2 explicitly states: “nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”
The statute itself repudiates proportionality as the legal standard. Yet proportionality has become the de facto test in practice. As Voting Rights Act scholar Abigail Thernstrom documented, Section 2 morphed into exactly what Congress said it wasn’t: a proportional representation mandate.
This creates the Catch-22 Louisiana now faces: Courts tell states they must create majority-minority districts to comply with Section 2, but creating such districts means making race the predominant factor in redistricting—which violates the 14th Amendment’s ban on racial classifications.
The Heritage Foundation is right: this is an “impossible” situation created by judicial and congressional overreach beyond the Constitution’s original meaning.
Why Louisiana’s Position Goes Too Far
Louisiana now argues that ALL race-conscious redistricting violates the Constitution. This position abandons the 2024 map the state previously defended and goes further than necessary.
Louisiana’s error is threefold:
First, it ignores the reality of intentional discrimination. Louisiana’s 2022 map didn’t accidentally dilute Black voting power—it systematically packed Black voters into a single district to minimize their statewide influence. Federal courts found this likely violated Section 2. Pretending such discrimination doesn’t exist serves neither truth nor justice.
Second, it dismisses the lessons of history. For a century after Reconstruction, Southern states used every conceivable method to suppress Black voting. Literacy tests. Poll taxes. Grandfather clauses. White primaries. Racial gerrymandering. The Voting Rights Act exists because states demonstrated—repeatedly—that left to their own devices, they WOULD discriminate.
A Christian understanding of original sin and fallen human nature confirms this historical reality. Romans 3:23 reminds us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Racial prejudice is one manifestation of that sin. Accountability measures serve a legitimate purpose.
Third, Louisiana’s “race-blind” absolutism creates perverse incentives. If states can never consider race when remedying proven discrimination, they face no consequences for intentional vote dilution. Draw a discriminatory map, get sued, lose in court—then claim you’re prohibited from fixing it because any remedy would be “race-conscious.” This is bad-faith constitutional avoidance.
The 15th Amendment Framers intended to PROHIBIT racial discrimination in voting. Louisiana’s position would make that prohibition toothless.
Why the Liberal VRA Interpretation Also Fails
But civil rights groups defending Louisiana’s 2024 map also depart from constitutional originalism. Their error lies in treating proportional representation as a constitutional entitlement.
First, they ignore the text of Section 2 itself. The statute explicitly disclaims any right to proportional representation. Yet the Gingles framework—which requires showing a minority group is “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority” in a district—effectively mandates proportionality in practice.
If Black voters comprise 33% of Louisiana’s population and courts require drawing districts where they can elect candidates of choice, the mathematical result is districts drawn primarily on racial lines to achieve that outcome.
Second, they make race the predominant factor in redistricting. The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits racial classifications except in the narrowest circumstances with compelling justification. As Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race.”
When courts mandate majority-minority districts, race becomes THE primary consideration—overriding traditional redistricting principles like compactness, preserving communities of interest, respecting county boundaries, and maintaining incumbents. This inverts the constitutional priority.
Third, they treat citizens as members of racial groups rather than individuals. The liberal VRA interpretation presumes that Black voters have uniform political interests distinct from white voters, and that only Black representatives can adequately represent Black constituents. This racialist thinking contradicts both the Constitution’s color-blind ideal and biblical anthropology.
Galatians 3:28 declares: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” While Paul addresses spiritual unity, the principle extends to civic life: we are individuals before God and under law, not permanent members of racialized political blocs.
Fourth, they provide no limiting principle or endpoint. Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed this point during oral arguments: should race-based remedies continue indefinitely? The Court held in Students for Fair Admissions (2023) that affirmative action must have an endpoint because “the Equal Protection Clause is designed to forbid, not accommodate, race-based classifications.”
If race-conscious redistricting has no temporal limit and no objective standard for when discrimination has been remedied, it becomes a permanent feature of American democracy—exactly what the 14th Amendment forbids.
The Third Way: Originalist Anti-Discrimination
Those committed to constitutional originalism must reject both extremes. The choice isn’t between ignoring racial discrimination and mandating racial quotas. The Reconstruction Framers embedded a principled middle path in the Constitution itself.
The Third Way Framework:
1. Apply neutral redistricting criteria as the primary standard. States should draw districts based on traditional, race-neutral principles: compactness, contiguity, preserving communities of interest, respecting political subdivisions, and maintaining incumbents where appropriate. These criteria should drive the process.
2. Prohibit intentional racial discrimination. If evidence shows a state deliberately drew district lines to suppress minority voting power—packing minority voters into as few districts as possible or cracking them across many districts to dilute their influence—courts should strike down such maps as violating the 15th Amendment.
3. Require proof of discriminatory intent, not mere disparate impact. The burden should rest on plaintiffs to demonstrate that mapmakers acted with discriminatory purpose. Showing that a race-neutral map produces racially disproportionate results is insufficient. The Constitution prohibits disparate treatment, not disparate impact.
This returns Section 2 to its pre-1982 interpretation: banning intentional discrimination while allowing states flexibility in how they draw districts.
4. Allow race as A factor, never THE predominant factor. When remedying proven intentional discrimination, states may consider race among multiple factors. But race cannot be the primary driver that overrides all other considerations. If neutral criteria produce majority-minority districts, fine. If not, also fine—so long as no discriminatory intent exists.
5. This framework honors BOTH Reconstruction Amendments. The 14th Amendment prohibits racial classifications. The 15th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination in voting. By requiring proof of discriminatory intent while forbidding race-predominant redistricting, the Third Way reconciles both amendments.
Why This Approach Matters for Louisiana
Applied to Louisiana’s situation, the Third Way offers a clear resolution:
Louisiana’s 2022 map deserved scrutiny. If evidence showed the legislature deliberately packed Black voters into a single district to minimize their statewide influence—and Louisiana Republicans’ own statements about “protecting” white incumbents suggest this—then courts should have demanded a new map.
But the remedy should not be a map drawn primarily on racial lines. Instead, Louisiana should redraw districts using traditional, neutral criteria. If those criteria naturally produce two majority-minority districts (because Louisiana’s Black population is geographically concentrated in particular regions), that’s constitutional.
If neutral criteria produce only one majority-Black district, that’s also constitutional—so long as no discriminatory intent drove the result. The Constitution requires equal treatment, not equal outcomes.
The difference is subtle but critical: Is race THE reason for the district configuration, or is it an incidental result of applying neutral principles? The first violates the 14th Amendment. The second does not.
The Stakes: More Than Just Louisiana
Louisiana v. Callais will determine far more than Louisiana’s congressional map. This case could reshape American redistricting for a generation.
If the Court sides with Louisiana’s absolutist position:
• Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could be effectively gutted
• The 39-year-old Thornburg v. Gingles standard would be overturned
• States would face minimal constraints on racially discriminatory redistricting
• According to Fair Fight Action analysis, up to 19 majority-Black congressional districts could be eliminated
• The Congressional Black Caucus could lose 30% of its members
• Republican control of the House could be cemented for a generation
If the Court sides with civil rights groups’ proportionality mandate:
• Racial classifications become a permanent feature of redistricting
• The 14th Amendment’s color-blind ideal is abandoned
• Race must be the predominant factor in drawing districts
• No limiting principle or endpoint for race-conscious remedies
• Citizens are treated as members of racial blocs, not individuals
• The Constitution’s prohibition on racial gerrymandering becomes meaningless
Both outcomes betray the Constitution’s original meaning. Both extremes fail.
Justice Kavanaugh Holds the Key
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is the swing vote. In 2023’s Allen v. Milligan (the Alabama redistricting case), he sided with the liberal justices to uphold Section 2 and require a second majority-Black district.
But during the October 15 oral arguments in Callais, Kavanaugh signaled potential skepticism. He asked whether race-based remedies should have an “endpoint”—echoing the logic the Court used to strike down affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions.
Kavanaugh faces a choice: maintain his Milligan position and risk cementing permanent racial proportionality, or flip entirely and gut Section 2 protections.
We pray he chooses the Third Way.
Kavanaugh could write a concurring opinion establishing a new framework: Section 2 remains constitutional when it prohibits intentional discrimination, but it cannot require race-predominant redistricting to achieve proportional outcomes. States must apply neutral criteria; courts may intervene only when discriminatory intent is proven.
Such an opinion would honor both the Voting Rights Act’s legitimate anti-discrimination purpose AND the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on racial classifications. It would give states clear guidance while protecting minority voters from intentional vote dilution.
This is the constitutional sweet spot—and Kavanaugh has the power to make it the law of the land.
What Americans of Faith Must Do Now
1. Pray for the Supreme Court justices. James 1:5 promises: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” People of faith should pray specifically that:
• The justices would reject both extremes and find constitutional truth
• Kavanaugh would recognize the Third Way and write a concurring opinion establishing it
• The Court would honor original intent in both Reconstruction Amendments
• Political pressure would not sway constitutional principle
2. Understand what’s really at stake. This case isn’t about helping Republicans or Democrats—it’s about preserving constitutional government. Both racial discrimination AND racial quotas violate the Constitution’s original meaning. All Americans committed to originalism must articulate this Third Way clearly.
3. Contact your elected representatives. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, Congress can act. If the Court guts Section 2, Congress can restore its original 1965 language prohibiting intentional discrimination. If the Court cements proportionality, Congress can amend Section 2 to clarify that it doesn’t mandate race-predominant redistricting.
Urge your senators and representatives to support originalist interpretation: Prohibit discrimination, don’t mandate outcomes.
4. Reject the false choice in your own thinking. Don’t let political tribalism force you into either extreme. You can simultaneously believe that:
• Racial discrimination in voting is evil and should be prohibited
• Racial proportionality mandates are unconstitutional and should be rejected
These positions aren’t contradictory—they’re what the Constitution actually requires.
5. Prepare for long-term engagement. Whatever the Court decides, the battle over redistricting will continue. The 2030 census is already approaching. States will redraw districts again. All Americans committed to constitutional originalism must remain engaged in defending the Framers’ vision through multiple election cycles.
Conclusion: Standing for Truth Between Two Lies
Louisiana v. Callais forces America to confront an uncomfortable truth: both major sides in the redistricting debate have departed from the Constitution’s original meaning.
Conservatives who claim ALL race-conscious redistricting violates the Constitution ignore the 15th Amendment’s prohibition on racial discrimination. They would leave minority voters defenseless against intentional vote dilution.
Liberals who demand proportional racial representation ignore the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on racial classifications. They would make race the primary factor in American democracy forever.
The Constitution offers a better way.
The Reconstruction Framers intended to prohibit racial discrimination in voting while maintaining the principle of equal protection under law—treating citizens as individuals, not racial groups. The 15th Amendment bans denying the vote based on race. The 14th Amendment bans using race as the predominant factor in government action.
These commands aren’t contradictory—they’re complementary. States must not discriminate. States must not use race-predominant redistricting. Both commands can be honored through the Third Way: neutral criteria as the primary standard, with intervention only when discriminatory intent is proven.
The Supreme Court will decide Louisiana v. Callais by June 2026. The decision will shape American democracy for decades. Whether the justices discover the Third Way—or choose one of the two false extremes—depends in part on whether Americans articulate the constitutional truth clearly and people of faith pray fervently for wisdom.
Those committed to constitutional truth cannot accept the false choice between ignoring discrimination and mandating quotas. The Constitution requires justice without partiality—the same standard the Bible demands.
Let us pray that the Supreme Court finds the narrow path between two errors—and restores the Framers’ vision of a republic where citizens are treated as individuals under law, regardless of race, and where intentional discrimination meets swift correction without creating permanent racial classifications.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The constitutional principle couldn’t be clearer. May God grant our justices wisdom to see the Third Way.
For Further Reading
Priority Definition: Third Way
Concept and framework originated by Jeff Bayard (© 2025).
Third Way (noun)
1. A course of principle and judgment between two errors or extremes; a path of moral and civil balance that seeks justice without partiality, liberty without license, and government under divine order.
2. In Christian and constitutional thought, that system of reasoning which unites biblical truth and the original intent of the Constitution—rejecting both lawless discrimination and enforced favoritism, and affirming the equal dignity of all persons as created in the image of God.
3. Figuratively, a reconciliation of righteousness and mercy in public affairs; the rule of equity that honors God while preserving freedom among men.
Primary Sources:
• Louisiana v. Callais – SCOTUSblog Case Page
• Oral Argument Transcript – October 15, 2025
• Louisiana’s Congressional Map (S.B. 8) – Full Text
• Robinson v. Landry – District Court Opinion
Constitutional Resources:
• 14th Amendment – Equal Protection Clause
• 15th Amendment – Voting Rights
• Voting Rights Act Section 2 – Full Text
• Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
Conservative/Originalist Analysis:
• Heritage Foundation: “Why We Can’t Quit Racial Redistricting”
• Heritage Foundation: “Disparate Impact and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act”
• National Affairs: “Redistricting, Race, and the Voting Rights Act”
Related VCA Constitutional Showdown Articles:
• Constitutional Showdown: Proof of Citizenship to Vote
• Birthright Citizenship: SCOTUS Battle
• Christian Counselors vs. State Control: Chiles v. Salazar
Scripture for Further Study:
• Genesis 1:27 (Individual image-bearers)
• Leviticus 19:15 (Justice without partiality)
• Romans 3:23 (Universal sin nature)
• Galatians 3:28 (Unity in Christ)
• James 1:5 (Wisdom from God)
We welcome thoughtful and respectful dialogue from all viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, relevant, and free of profanity, personal attacks, or mockery of Christian faith. Disagreement is allowed—disrespect is not.
Published: 10/26/2025| Series: Constitutional Showdown | Virginia Christian Alliance
