Glaring Hypocrisy as NAACP and Others File Emergency Motion to Halt Redistricting in Louisiana
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on the landmark voting rights case of Louisiana v. Callais, while arguments were heard in the Virginia Supreme Court in Scott v. McDougle.
In Callais, the Supreme Court held that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ordered that the judgment be issued to the lower courts immediately, rather than in 32 days, allowing Louisiana to redraw its congressional maps immediately.
In McDougle, the state held a referendum vote to temporarily amend the state’s constitution to allow for a redistricting that would most likely yield a 10-1 map favoring the Democrats. Currently, the map is 6-5 in favor of the Democrats. President Donald Trump received 48% of the vote in the 2024 election; however, to “restore fairness,” as it was worded on the ballot on April 21, Republicans would be limited to less than 10% representation.
The Virginia Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision on Scott v. McDougle; however, an injunction to halt the referendum in a lower court was left in place, which may suggest a favorable ruling against the 10-1 gerrymander favoring the Democrat party.
The Gateway Pundit previously covered the contested issues that resulted in a lower court staying the referendum vote, only to have that stay overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court without a ruling on the merits. The high court would only consider the merits of the case after the election had taken place and only if the referendum vote was successful.
Enter the NAACP and League of Women Voters, et al
After the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the racial gerrymander in Louisiana, the NAACP, League of Women Voters, and the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice sought a temporary restraining order barring Governor Jeff Landry from implementing a new map to replace the unconstitutional gerrymandered map before the state's primary election, for which absentee ballots were mailed out in April, and early voting began on May 2.
In their petition, plaintiffs state that they will be "irreparably harmed if they or their members have their votes canceled because of the Governor's unlawful Executive Order purporting to cancel the May 16...elections."
They later wrote, "Before the Governor issued his executive order, Louisiana NAACP members had already cast their absentee ballots in the May 16, 2026, congressional primary," and that, "As a result of the Governor suspending the elections, the Louisiana NAACP’s efforts to educate voters on the timing of the May 16, 2026, congressional primaries were wasted."
With the U.S. Supreme Court's expedited judgment, it would be unconstitutional for Louisiana to allow the election to go forward, given the High Court's ultimate decision that the current map violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
But how can Louisiana apply the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling when the election, or, as argued in McDougle, "early voting" (not the election), had already begun?
Enter Previous Arguments in the Virginia Supreme Court
One of the central arguments in McDougle was that the General Assembly violated the Virginia constitution by proposing the amendment days before the election for the next General Assembly.
In Virginia, the constitution requires that the proposed amendment be agreed to a first time by the General Assembly. Then, an election for the House of Delegates must occur before the next General Assembly delegation votes on the proposed amendment a second time. From there, if the proposal is approved, it is presented to the voters of Virginia in a referendum.
The House of Delegates didn't pass the proposal a first time until October 31, 2025, days before Election Day for the next House of Delegates. Petitioners argued voters had already cast their ballots, thwarting the intent of the framers to allow constituents "accountability" for how their delegate voted on the proposal.
Millions of early voters weren't even aware that such a proposal was going to be made.
According to appellants' counsel, early voting is an option one takes knowing that something 'endemic to voting' could happen.
Appellants' counsel argued (starting at 4:10):
I understand the concern that someone who cast their ballot before something happened might be upset or regret it...and that is a problem that is endemic to early voting. That is a problem that someone accepts by taking advantage of the option of voting early. It's worth pointing out that every single voter in the commonwealth has the option to cast their ballot on Election Day.
The Virginia Solicitor General making the argument that "next general election" ONLY means "Election Day" (totally different meanings) and that "elected" somehow equals "election" is insane.
Keep in mind this is the party that just argued in RNC v. Watson that "Election Day" can… pic.twitter.com/4u4Oqz5jOT
— CannCon (@canncon) April 28, 2026
It is worth noting that the voter being "upset" or showing "regret" for early voting isn't related to an "October Surprise" such as an affair, or a laptop full of damning information in the Virginia case.
It relates to a constitutional amendment for a temporary redistricting in order to swing the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives to stop Trump, as alluded to by Senator Tim Kaine on FOX News.
Further, appellants' counsel argues the definition of 'election,' claiming that it begins once the polls close and the ballots are counted.
"So your position requires us to interpret 'election' in such a manner that literally every single vote that is cast for whatever the office is cast before the 'election' even begins?"
"Yes, your Honor..."
The Virginia Solicitor General making the argument that "next general election" ONLY means "Election Day" (totally different meanings) and that "elected" somehow equals "election" is insane.
Keep in mind this is the party that just argued in RNC v. Watson that "Election Day" can… pic.twitter.com/4u4Oqz5jOT
— CannCon (@canncon) April 28, 2026
The ACLU in announcing the NAACP et al.'s emergency challenge to the Louisiana governor's executive order called for the "suspension of the state's congressional primary election after voting has already begun statewide" in line with the NAACP and League of Women Voters petition.
Careful, ACLU.
They just argued in the Virginia Supreme Court that an "election" doesn't begin until AFTER everyone has voted and they begin counting the votes.
How can this be the "suspension of the state's congressional primary election after voting has already begun… pic.twitter.com/MqgTmAdp94
— CannCon (@canncon) May 4, 2026
The hypocrisy is glaring. In Louisiana, they can't redraw the unconstitutional maps because voting for the election has already begun. However, in Virginia, they can amend their constitution, something that could take generations to undo, to take away representation from more than 40% of the Republican constituency?
Thankfully, many legal scholars, including former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, believe the Virginia Supreme Court is inclined to strike down the unconstitutional referendum.
1/x
Tea leaf update re the #VaRedistricting case(s):
1. No opinion yet from #SCOVA in the case argued last Monday (Tazewell 1). That case is about the 2025 violations of Va's constitution & laws by the Democrat General Assembly— Ken Cuccinelli II (@KenCuccinelli) May 4, 2026
The post Glaring Hypocrisy as NAACP and Others File Emergency Motion to Halt Redistricting in Louisiana appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.