Republicans insist their party is not driven by racism.

Let’s look at what Republicans are actually doing — right now, this week, in real time — and let that record speak for itself.

The Supreme Court handed down its ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act on April 29th. Within 24 hours, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry declared a state of emergency and suspended active primary elections that were already underway — with 45,000 absentee ballots already cast and early voting open to all voters. By May 4th, more than 104,000 Louisiana voters had already cast ballots in those elections.

It didn’t matter. Landry suspended them anyway. Trump went on Truth Social to personally thank him for "moving so quickly."

The explicit goal: eliminate the congressional districts currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields and Rep. Troy Carter — both Black Democrats — by redrawing the map to crack and dilute the majority-Black communities that elected them.

The Louisiana State Senate advanced the new map in a middle-of-the-night, party-line vote. The bill’s Republican sponsor, Sen. Jay Morris, stood on the Senate floor and said: "I’m not redistricting on race. I’m redistricting on partisanship."

And then Republicans voted down — 27 to 10, along party lines — a proposed amendment that would have drawn a race-neutral map achieving the exact same partisan result. A map that split fewer parishes and, by the sponsor’s own admission, matched or exceeded the Republican map on every other factor Louisiana law requires for redistricting.

They rejected the race-neutral option. They chose the race-based option. And then the sponsor said they weren’t redistricting on race.

That is not an accusation. That is the documented sequence of events, in order, from the legislative record.

The Scope of What Is Happening

Louisiana is the most dramatic example because it is the only state that actually suspended active elections to do this — a step that legal scholars from across the political spectrum say the governor may not even have constitutional authority to take. The Purcell principle, embraced by members of the Supreme Court’s own conservative majority, holds that voting rules and maps should not be changed close to an election. In Louisiana’s case, the election had already started. Voters had already cast ballots. The governor suspended it anyway. Multiple lawsuits have been filed. The courts are sorting it out as this is written.

But Louisiana is not alone. Not even close.

In Alabama, Attorney General Steve Marshall’s stated goal — his explicit, public, on-the-record goal — is a Republican congressional delegation of 7-0 in a state where Black voters make up 27% of the population. The Supreme Court has vacated the injunction requiring a second majority-Black district. Governor Kay Ivey has called a special session. A special primary has been scheduled for August. The map being advanced is one that federal courts previously found to be a racial gerrymander — rejected specifically because it was drawn to dilute Black voting power. Alabama is now advancing it again.

In Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee called a special session specifically to break up the 9th Congressional District — the majority-Black Memphis seat held by Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen, the only Democrat in Tennessee’s congressional delegation. Trump personally posted that Lee had promised to work toward "one extra seat." One extra Republican seat means one fewer Black-represented district.

In Florida, Governor DeSantis signed a new map into law — on the same day as the Supreme Court ruling — that creates a 24-4 Republican advantage in a state where millions of Democratic voters live, specifically targeting majority-minority districts that courts had previously required to protect Black and Hispanic voting power.

In South Carolina, Governor Henry McMaster is pressuring the legislature to redistrict specifically to eliminate the seat held by Rep. Jim Clyburn — one of the most senior Black members of Congress in American history. South Carolina’s elections director has said the process may require employees to work 24 hours a day to meet the timeline Republicans are demanding.

In Texas, the entire mid-decade redistricting wave that set all of this in motion began when Trump ordered Texas Republicans to redraw their maps — maps that courts found likely constituted a racial gerrymander — to produce more Republican seats. The Supreme Court allowed that map to proceed anyway.

The Claim vs. The Reality

Republicans say this is about partisanship, not race. They say they are drawing maps based on political performance data, not racial demographics.

Here is the problem with that argument, stated plainly: in the states where this redistricting is happening, Black voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Drawing a map to eliminate Democratic districts in these states and drawing a map to eliminate Black representation in these states are, functionally and in their practical effect, the same map. The partisan justification and the racial outcome are inseparable in a state where racial and partisan voting patterns are as strongly correlated as they are in Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, and South Carolina.

This is not a new observation. Courts have been wrestling with exactly this distinction for decades. The Voting Rights Act existed specifically because Southern states had spent a century using exactly this kind of reasoning to render Black political power meaningless — "we’re not targeting race, we’re targeting Democrats" — while producing maps that left Black communities without meaningful representation.

The Louisiana Senate’s rejection of a race-neutral amendment that would have achieved the same partisan result is the most clarifying moment of this entire redistricting wave. When given the explicit choice between "partisan but race-neutral" and "partisan but race-conscious," they chose the race-conscious option. And then said it was about partisanship.

On the Democratic Comparison

The original piece raises this, and it deserves a direct answer: yes, Democrats have redrawn maps in California and other states in response to this redistricting wave. That is true and should be acknowledged honestly.

The differences matter and are worth stating clearly.

California and Virginia gave voters a direct say — through ballot referendums — on whether to proceed with new maps. Republicans in Louisiana suspended an election that was already happening to prevent voters from having any say at all.

Democrats are drawing maps in response to a redistricting wave that Trump himself initiated when he ordered Texas to redraw its maps last year — maps that Republicans won the House majority with in both 2022 and 2024. Trump started this war because his party is terrified of November’s midterms, where every major polling indicator shows Democrats with a significant advantage. He is trying to draw his way out of an electoral reckoning his own policies created.

And critically: the maps Democrats are drawing do not have as their explicit purpose the elimination of districts represented by white Republicans. The maps Republicans are drawing have as their explicit, stated, documented purpose the elimination of districts represented by Black Democrats.

That is not the same thing. It is not ethically equivalent. And the refusal to acknowledge that distinction — to insist that both parties are "just gerrymandering" — requires ignoring the specific racial targeting that is the documented purpose of what is happening in Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, and South Carolina right now.

Why the Voting Rights Act Existed

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was born, as Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, "of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers." It was passed because states — specifically these states — spent a century after the 15th Amendment theoretically guaranteed Black Americans the right to vote inventing new mechanisms to make that right meaningless. Literacy tests. Poll taxes. Grandfather clauses. At-large elections. Racial gerrymanders justified as partisan decisions.

The Act required those states to prove their election law changes did not harm minority voting power before implementing them. It existed specifically because the history of these states demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that left to their own devices, they would use every available tool to dilute and eliminate Black political representation.

Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court removing that protection, Louisiana suspended an active election to redraw its maps and eliminate its Black-represented districts. Within days, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and South Carolina were doing the same.

The speed of the response is itself the answer to anyone who asks whether the Voting Rights Act was still necessary.

It was necessary. It is necessary. And the events of the past two weeks have demonstrated exactly why — more clearly, and more urgently, than any argument ever could.

Rep. Cleo Fields — whose own district is being targeted for elimination — said it plainly: "The election is already underway. The Governor and the Secretary of State are attempting to disenfranchise voters in the 6th Congressional District and across Louisiana mid-election."

People have already voted. That should be the end of the conversation.

It isn’t. And the fact that it isn’t tells you everything you need to know about who needs protecting — and from whom.