29 Apr 2026 Black Activists Cheer Today’s Supreme Court Decision on the Voting Rights Act

Washington, D.C. — After the U.S. Supreme Court today limited the use of race in the way voting maps are drawn, black conservatives with the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Project 21 black leadership network agreed that the time has come to end gerrymandering across racial lines.

“As a former Michigan Civil Rights Commissioner, I view the Court’s decision as a principled application of the Equal Protection Clause, reinforcing that race cannot predominate in redistricting absent a compelling and narrowly tailored justification under the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” said Project 21 Ambassador Linda Lee Tarver, Ed.D., Th.D. “The Constitution demands that government classifications based on race remain the exception — not the rule. The legacy of the Civil Rights Movement was to secure equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, not to institutionalize racial line-drawing as a default feature of our political system. The notion of labeling areas as ‘black districts’ is deeply problematic, as it implies that representation must be engineered through race rather than earned through ideas, engagement and broad-based support. It also overlooks a fundamental reality of modern America: Black citizens, like all Americans, are free to live, work and vote wherever they choose. To assume that black voters require racially constructed districts to achieve representation risks reinforcing outdated assumptions about political behavior and undermines the very progress the nation has made. Courts must remain vigilant against vote dilution, but they must also ensure that remedies do not entrench race-based sorting that conflicts with constitutional guarantees. This decision appropriately emphasizes that fairness in redistricting is best achieved through adherence to neutral principles, respect for individual rights and a continued commitment to a system in which every voter is treated equally under the law.”

“Our Constitution, which always contemplated a society that neither benefited nor harmed a citizen because of race, ultimately was formally amended in 1868 through the 14th Amendment to ensure that it was colorblind,” said Project 21 Chairman Horace Cooper, a former constitutional law professor. “Today the Court recognized that our Constitution is colorblind when it comes to racial gerrymandering, and all state legislatures must adhere to this. I commend the Supreme Court as it continues to uphold this vital ‘colorblind’ policy — a policy that ensures no American is favored over another because of his or her race. To quote Justice Thomas, ‘Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence.’ We at Project 21 continue to strive to make sure that all Americans — white, black or brown — live in an America that sees them as individuals and not as race-hued beings separated into groups.”

“It should have been shamefully obvious that relegating blacks into black voting blocs based on their blackness is contrary to the idea of equal protection under the law,” said Project 21 Ambassador Curtis T. Hill, Jr., a former Indiana Attorney General who also serves with the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “Fortunately, today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision makes ‘majority minority gerrymandering’ soon to be a relic of the past.”

“Today’s Louisiana v. Callais ruling is a big win for equality,” said Project 21 Ambassador AK Kamara. “The so-called ‘affirmative defense’ of racism is on its deathbed. More importantly, when the government employs this absurd ideology for voting purposes, it’s unconstitutional. My favorite justice, Clarence Thomas, stated it perfectly in his opinion: Treating voters as members of racial blocs rather than as individuals is ‘repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.'”

“Today is a great day for Americans who choose to live their lives as one nation under God. For those who have built their golden calf and altar around race and divisiveness, not so much,” said Project 21 Director of Coalitions and Outreach Terris Todd. “Today’s America would be unrecognizable to a generation that lived 100 years ago. However, it appears some people still seek to hold onto grievances, even though they are far removed from them. For instance, even a city like Detroit, Michigan, which is about 80% black, has chosen a white mayor to represent them for years and today has no black representation in Congress.”

“When the remedy for racial discrimination becomes racial discrimination, we have not solved the problem — we have merely changed who administers it,” added Project 21 Ambassador Craig DeLuz.

“The Supreme Court decision on redistricting in Louisiana is fair and just,” said Project 21 Ambassador Kendall Qualls. “The United States of America is not stuck in racially divided 1960, despite what academia and the mainstream media say. My parents lived through the segregated Jim Crow South. They would have loved to have grown up in the America I grew up in.”

 

 

About

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over 30 years, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Its members have been quoted, interviewed or published over 50,000 times since the program was created in 1992. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated and may be earmarked exclusively for the use of Project 21.

Founded in 1982, the National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Sign up for email updates here. Follow Project 21 on X at @Project21News for general announcements and at @NCPPRMedia for upcoming media appearances.

 

Editor’s Note: After the press release was sent out, we continued to receive statements on this issue from other Project 21 ambassadors, which are included below.

 

Adrian Norman, Project 21 Ambassador:

The Voting Rights Act was written to protect black voters. Using it as a shield for partisan mapmaking isn’t protection—it is exploitation.

There’s a reason the Supreme Court majority specifically called out the repackaging of partisan gerrymandering claims as racial ones. When race and party are this convenient for each other, and when anyone who notices gets called a racist, that’s not civil rights protection. That’s a political operation.

Black voters deserve better than being the legal cover for someone else’s political gains.

 

Jy Maze, Project 21 Ambassador:

I’m very pleased with the Court’s decision. It’s time to focus on new ideas and opportunities. After all, what is insanity if not doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results?

History has shown that relying on outdated approaches, like requiring racially constructed districts, has not led to meaningful improvements in residents’ living conditions.

 

Jacqueline (Jacque) Stevenson, Project 21 Ambassador:

After reviewing the full two hours and thirty minutes of the hearing, my takeaway is clear: This case highlights a deeper structural issue in how redistricting is handled in the United States. It strengthens the argument that redistricting should remain tied to the 10-year census cycle, with very limited exceptions. When redistricting occurs outside that cycle, it creates greater opportunity for political manipulation rather than maintaining stable, community-based representation. The current permittance to use political gerrymandering has become another color war.

This case also underscores an ongoing legal and constitutional tension—how to ensure fair representation without allowing race to become the dominant factor in drawing district lines. The Court’s position reinforces that race cannot be the primary organizing principle unless clearly required under federal law, while still leaving room to address legitimate concerns about fair electoral opportunity.

A key point raised during the hearing, including by Edward Grimes, is the risk of assuming that entire racial groups think or vote the same way. That assumption is more common than it should be, and it is deeply misrepresentative. Communities are not monolithic—they are diverse in perspective, experience, and priorities, regardless of race. Representation should be grounded in the reality of those communities, not shaped by broad generalizations tied to race. More broadly, this case brings attention to how redistricting is often influenced by political objectives rather than neutral criteria. When district lines are drawn with political outcomes in mind, it can weaken public trust and create a disconnect between voters and their representatives. This is especially concerning when communities are divided in ways that disrupt local cohesion, shared services, and consistent representation.

From a governance standpoint, redistricting should remain grounded in objective standards such as census data, geographic continuity, compactness, and community structure.When districts are shaped primarily by partisan considerations, it weakens public confidence that elected officials are truly responsive to the people they serve. While legislators are often quick to redraw districts for political advantage, the broader community impact cannot be ignored. Redistricting does not only shift political boundaries—it reshapes daily life. Communities can be split in ways that disrupt long-standing neighborhood connections, shared school districts, and local services. Children are impacted through overcrowded schools or shifting attendance zones that no longer reflect community reality. Neighbors living in the same area can end up in different political districts, despite sharing the same local concerns.

These outcomes raise a serious governance question: Are we reflecting real communities—or breaking them apart for political convenience? Going forward, redistricting commissions and state-level mapping bodies should strengthen guardrails that reduce partisan influence and improve fairness. This includes requiring transparent use of neutral criteria, clear documentation of mapping decisions, public justification for deviations from compactness or community boundaries, and independent review of proposed maps before adoption. Stronger standards for consistency, transparency, and nonpartisan methodology would improve public trust and ensure redistricting reflects communities—not political advantage.

Ultimately, the core issue is not race or party in isolation—it is how the system itself is structured. When partisan or race-based considerations dominate beyond what the law requires, it undermines trust, deepens division, and weakens the connection between voters and representation. The result is a system where many citizens feel their voices are filtered through political structures rather than directly reflected through community-based governance.

 

Project 21 Media Hits Related to This Issue

Dr. Linda Lee Tarver was quoted in an Associated Press article and appeared on NewstalkSTL’s “Mike Ferguson in the Morning”

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. was quoted by American Family News and talked with WAEB’s Bobby Gunther Walsh and WERC’s “Alabama’s Morning News with JT.”

AK Kamara discussed this on NewstalkSTL’s “Larry Conners USA.“