In my August 4, 2025 ANP Article I discussed Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814). Elbridge was Governor of Massachusetts from 1810-1812. His administration was known for creating partisan electoral districts. At one point, a political cartoon labeled this process "The Gerry-mander" and included the following political cartoon (click the image to enlarge it) illustrating how gerrymandering worked back then:
States now reapportion their electoral districts every 10 years to reflect the change in their population based on the census. The idea is to make the number of voters included in each created district equal. So if you have 10 districts and 1,000 people, each district would ideally have 100 people in it. The problem is legislators within each State want to 'favor' their own party when reapportioning or creating new districts. When this happens, it is called "gerrymandering" by the other party.
But gerrymandering is not illegal. In a June 27, 2019 SCOTUS 6:3 decision, SCOTUS found there is no constitutional procedure for creating districts, so states can create their districts however they decide. But, when the process to create districts violates the Equal Protection Clause 478 US 109, 116-117 (1986) it can and should be litigated. Yet, SCOTUS cautions States about involving the courts in the gerrymandering process, as that would create an unprecedented intervention in the American political process. Apparently, this gave States the idea that 'anything goes' when redistricting.
Congressional districts are 'awarded' based on the number of US Citizens living in a particular state. However, the 2020 census did not have the 'citizenship' question on it. The previous administration removed the question about citizenship and the deep state actors told President Trump in 2019 that it was too late to add the citizenship question back onto the census in time for the 2020 census.
Anyone researching genealogy knows that the different censuses asked different questions; however, one question that was consistently asked until the 2020 census was about citizenship, specifically asking when was the person naturalized, in addition to asking where all members of the household were born as well as where the parents of the adults in the household were born. Even the 1950 census (the "newest" census available to researchers due to privacy concerns) the question of where were you born is asked followed by asking if the person is naturalized. The 1950 census did not ask where the parents of the adults in the household were born. The 1960 census will not be available for review by researchers until 2032.
That means that the 2020 census numbers reported for each state reflected the sheer number of people residing in the state rather than the number of US Citizens that were living in each state. And some of the states went wild redistricting their state Congressional districts based on that sheer number of people rather than on the number of citizens.
To add insult to injury, with the installation of autopen into the White House, and the subsequent DEI & Woke EOs that administration put out, some States decided that they should gerrymander the district map to reflect districts that would represent their constituency based on race, against the advice of SCOTUS when they reminded litigants that the Equal Protection Clause applied to gerrymandering. One state that ignored that advice and wound up in the court system was Louisiana.
On January 15, 2024, the Louisiana legislature passed, and their Governor signed on January 22, 2024, SB8, which provided for redistricting of the State based on race. This created 6 bizarre shapes for these districts (wikipedia provides historical district maps for Louisiana from 1973 to 2025):
to maximize the voting strength of African American voters by stripping them from their communities in far-flung regions of Louisiana and consolidating them into two districts that stretched hundreds of miles in length and dwindled to less than a mile in width.
The lawsuit also points out that Hays v. Louisiana (1996) had a similar map that was rejected by the courts. They go on to explain that the difference between then and now is that the State has acknowledged these district boundaries were drawn to explicitly segregate voters based on race. The State held on to its idea of creating 2 congressional districts with a majority of Black voters (with an over 50% Black voting age population). The lawsuit sought the following relief:
this Court “immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges” so that “[t]he judges so designated, and the judge to whom the request was presented, shall serve as members of the court to hear and determine the action or proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1).
Plaintiffs pray that this Court issue a declaratory judgment that SB8 is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, issue an injunction barring the State of Louisiana from using SB8’s map of congressional districts for any election, and institute a congressional districting map that remedies these violations.
Plaintiffs also request all fees and costs recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The three-judge court convened by Chief Judge Priscilla Richman hereby APPOINTS Magistrate Judge Kayla D. McClusky to this matter to handle attorney admission requests, pro hac vice applications, and all other matters referred to her by the three-judge court.
As our colleagues so elegantly stated in Hays II, the long struggle for civil rights and equal protection under the law that has taken place in Louisiana and throughout our country, includes:
countless towns across the South, at schools and lunch counters, at voter registrar’s offices. They stood there, black and white, certain in the knowledge that the Dream was coming; determined that no threat, no spittle, no blow, no gun, no noose, no law could separate us because of the color of our skin. To say now: “Separate!” “Divide!” “Segregate!” is to negate their sacrifice, mock their dream, deny that self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that no government may deny them the equal protection of its laws.
Hays II at 125. The Court agrees and finds that SB8 violates the Equal Protection Clause as an impermissible racial gerrymander.
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. The State of Louisiana is prohibited from using SB8’s map of congressional districts for any election.
On April 29, 2026, SCOTUS issued a 6:3 decision on Phillip Callais, et.al., Applicants v. Louisiana, et.al. docket # 25A1197 (24-109 and 24-110):
The State’s attempt to satisfy the Middle District’s ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and we therefore affirm the decision below. . . . In considering whether the Constitution permits the intentional use of race to comply with the Voting Rights Act, we start with the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race . . . The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and these cases are remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On April 30, 2026, Judges Carl E Stewart, Robert R Summerhays, and David C Joseph considered the SCOTUS decision and ordered
This Court's ruling having been affirmed and the matter remanded by the supreme Court, the permanent Injunction issued by this Court prohibiting the State of Louisiana "from using SB8's map of congressional districts for any election" remains in effect. [Doc. 198].
The State of Louisiana will be afforded the opportunity to enact a Constitutionally Compliant map consistent with the Supreme court's Opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, 6708 US ____ 2026 and this Court's Injunction. [Doc. 198].
The State of Louisiana shall file a brief outlining how the State intends to comply with the supreme Court's opinion in Louisiana v. Callais and this Court's Injunction within three (3) days of receipt by this Court of a certified copy of the Supreme Court's Judgment. Any responses to the state of Louisiana's brief by other parties may be filed within three (3) days thereafter.
The State immediately filed an appeal to SCOTUS over how long they were given to remedy the congressional map. On May 4, 2026, SCOTUS Judges Alito, Thomas, & Gorsuch issued the following judgement:
The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional (nearly 7 months ago). The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting. Thus, the application to issue the judgment forthwith presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is granted.
Even after this final decision by SCOTUS and the final decision of the District Court, the State continued to attempt to stay the order. Leading to the May 27, 2026 order from Judges Carl E Stewart, Robert R Summerhays, and David C Joseph:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before June 1, 2026, Defendant Nancy Landry shall file a verified affidavit listing the true operational deadline to implement a new congressional districting map to be used in the November 3, 2026, election. The affidavit shall include the factual and legal bases for the operational deadline by describing the time periods in advance of the November 3, 2026, election date that are required to implement each step of the process.
The Louisiana decision was quickly followed by the May 8, 2026 SCOVA decision in Virginia which Virginia was currently fighting. However, the Virginia Governor has conceded to SCOVA's decision stating Virginia would use the 2021 district map. All of the Virginia's state representatives are up for reelection in 2026.
These decisions have led more states to redraw Congressional districts for their state to undo the racially based gerrymandering that has now been officially declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. It has also led to massive breakdowns of Democrat lawmakers in those states, such as Congress members Hakeem Jeffries and Mark Warner. And a Utah Supreme Court Justice resigned after accusations of an affair with an attorney in the redistricting case she was adjudicating in 2026. In California, the courts refused to enjoin the 2026 election map but the suit is ongoing as of May 8, 2026. In addition, on May 10, 2026, SGTReport published an article questioning California's election integrity due to the discovery of uncounted ballots which were discovered after the 'official' count was reported.
On the other hand, Democrat states are toying with the idea of redrawing their Congressional districts to ensure only Democrats can be elected to office (some states with more than 40% Republican voters in their state currently have zero Republican representation in Congress).
So where does redistricting stand in the wake of the SCOVA and SCOTUS decisions? Ballotpedia shows California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio (required by law to redistrict before 2026 elections), Tennessee, and Texas passed new congressional maps between 2024 and 2026. Litigation has led to a new Utah map. Alabama and Georgia are currently experiencing ongoing litigation about their maps. In New York, SCOTUS said they could wait until after the 2026 elections to redraw. All 50 states redrew their congressional districts after receiving the results of the 2020 census. RedState reports that Mississippi is planning to redistrict at their earliest opportunity. RedState also reports that Tennessee is currently redistricting based on the recent SCOTUS decision.
Without election reforms, there will be much more fraud regardless of how districts are drawn. Between now and next census, the citizenship question needs to be put back on the census form, including the "where were you born" and "where were your parents born" questions. And Congress needs to get off their collective duffs and start passing President Trump's election reform EOs!
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
