The Virginia Christian Alliance continues our Constitutional Showdown series analyzing how two states—Louisiana and Virginia—demonstrate the same constitutional violation from opposite directions, in relation to the Supreme Court ruling on Louisiana v. Callais.
THE BOTTOM LINE: On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais, ruling it unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Meanwhile, Virginia’s voter-approved redistricting map sits blocked by courts, with the state Supreme Court deciding its fate. Both maps raise the same constitutional problem—Louisiana by making race the predominant factor (held unconstitutional by SCOTUS), Virginia by making partisanship predominant (under legal challenge). The Reconstruction Framers designed a Third WayThird Way: neutral redistricting criteria that neither discriminate against minorities nor make race or party the driving force. The Supreme Court missed this path. Virginia’s court shouldn’t repeat the error.
Louisiana v. Callais: Court Strikes Down Race-Based Map
Two days ago, the Supreme Court decided Louisiana v. Callais in a 6-3 ruling. Louisiana had redrawn its congressional map in 2024 to create a second majority-Black district after courts found the 2022 map (one Black district despite 33% Black population) likely violated the Voting Rights Act.
Justice Alito’s majority struck down the 2024 map as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Since Louisiana had no legal requirement to create that second district, the state couldn’t justify making race the predominant factor.
Justice Kagan’s dissent warned the ruling severely weakens Section 2 by allowing states to defend racial vote dilution through partisan justifications—protecting incumbents or maximizing party advantage shields racially discriminatory maps.
The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Error
The Supreme Court had all the pieces. Louisiana’s 2022 map showed possible discrimination against Black voters. Louisiana’s 2024 map showed race-predominant remedies. The Third Way—neutral criteria that prohibit discrimination without mandating racial outcomes—was visible in the constitutional text itself.
Instead, the Court chose the worst possible path: blessing partisan justifications as shields for racial vote dilution. This doesn’t honor the Constitution. It creates a loophole that invites exactly the discrimination the Fifteenth Amendment was designed to prevent.
The Court got it wrong. Not because the justices misread precedent, but because they ignored what the Reconstruction Framers actually wrote into the Constitution. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits denying votes “on account of race”—clear prohibition language. It doesn’t require proportional outcomes. The Court had the opportunity to articulate this standard clearly. It failed.
Virginia’s Proposed Map Shows the Same Problem
Eight days before Louisiana v. Callais, Virginia voters approved a referendum allowing Democrats to bypass the independent redistricting commission for a map projecting 10 Democratic seats, 1 Republican in a closely divided state.
Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled the referendum unconstitutional April 22 and blocked certification. Virginia’s Supreme Court denied the stay April 28, leaving the block in place.
The visual evidence is clear: Virginia’s proposed map shows districts snaking across the state, ignoring boundaries, carving communities apart. Districts following neutral criteria look roughly circular, respecting county lines. Districts drawn for partisan advantage look like tentacles packing friendly voters together and splitting opposition voters apart.
Both Maps Raise the Same Constitutional Problem
Louisiana and Virginia represent opposite errors reaching the same constitutional issue.
Louisiana’s 2024 map has been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for making race predominant—districts drawn to achieve a racial outcome violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Virginia’s proposed map raises the same constitutional problem by making partisanship predominant. District shapes prove neutral criteria weren’t the priority—partisan advantage drove the design. While courts address whether the referendum process itself was valid, the deeper question remains: does the resulting map violate the principle that neutral criteria should drive redistricting?
Louisiana’s 2022 map may have violated the Constitution as well. If legislators deliberately minimized Black voting power to protect Republican incumbents, that’s intentional racial discrimination prohibited by the Fifteenth Amendment.
All three maps failed the constitutional test: Louisiana 2022 (possible discrimination), Louisiana 2024 (race-predominant, held unconstitutional), Virginia 2026 (partisan-predominant, under legal challenge).
What the Constitution Actually Requires
The Reconstruction Framers embedded a clear standard: states must apply neutral redistricting criteria that neither discriminate against minorities nor make race or partisanship predominant.
Traditional neutral criteria: compactness (roughly circular districts, not tentacles), contiguity (connected parts), communities of interest (keep regions together), political boundaries (respect county lines), and equal population.
If applying these criteria naturally produces majority-minority districts because minority populations are geographically concentrated, that’s constitutional—race is incidental, not the driving purpose. If criteria produce districts favoring one party because voters cluster geographically, that’s also constitutional—as long as mapmakers applied principles honestly.
The key distinction: Is race or partisanship THE reason for district configuration, or a natural result of genuinely neutral principles?
The Third Way the Courts Keep Missing
In our October 2025 analysis of Louisiana v. Callais, we identified what the Reconstruction Framers intended: prohibit racial discrimination without mandating racial quotas or making race predominant.
The Fifteenth Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged…on account of race.” Prohibition language—states cannot discriminate. Not mandate language—states need not engineer proportional racial outcomes.
The Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais had the constitutional text, the historical record, and the opportunity to get this right. The Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition language is unambiguous. The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection standard is clear. Neutral redistricting criteria—compactness, contiguity, communities of interest—have been recognized for generations.
Instead, the Court created a partisan loophole that makes a mockery of both amendments. States can now dilute minority votes with impunity—just cite partisan goals. Protect incumbents. Maximize party seats. The result is the same racial discrimination the Constitution forbids, but courts will call it constitutional because the stated motivation was political.
This isn’t constitutional interpretation. It’s constitutional evasion. The Court didn’t uphold the Fifteenth Amendment—it gutted it while pretending to preserve it.
Virginia’s Supreme Court now faces the same choice. Will it require neutral redistricting criteria that prohibit both intentional discrimination and race-or-party-predominant gerrymandering? Or will it repeat the Supreme Court’s error and bless one form of constitutional violation while condemning the other?
What Happens Next
Louisiana suspended its May 16 primary to redraw maps. Virginia’s case sits before the state Supreme Court with no decision date. Both states face the same question: Will courts require neutral criteria that prohibit both discrimination and race-or-party-predominant gerrymandering?
The Framers answered clearly: Prohibit intentional discrimination. Apply neutral criteria. Reject maps where race or party becomes predominant. There is a Third Way. The Constitution requires it. Courts need to apply it.
When Virginia’s Supreme Court rules, VCA will provide comprehensive constitutional analysis examining what the decision means for redistricting nationwide. For the complete Third Way framework—including biblical foundations, Framers’ intent, and detailed case law—read our October 2025 analysis: Louisiana v. Callais: The Framers’ Third Way on Voting Rights.
Published: May 1, 2026 | Series: Constitutional Showdown | Virginia Christian Alliance
Related Coverage:
