Summary
The Supreme Court is reviewing a case called Callais v. Landry, which examines how much states can use race when drawing voting maps. Albert "Skip" Caissie Jr., one of the plaintiffs, was unaware he was involved in the lawsuit until recently. The case challenges Louisiana’s redistricting plan, claiming it discriminates based on race, which could affect how voting districts are determined across the United States.
Key Facts
- The case Callais v. Landry is being heard by the Supreme Court.
- It questions the extent to which states can consider race in drawing voting maps.
- Albert "Skip" Caissie Jr. is one of the plaintiffs and did not realize he was involved until contacted by the media.
- The lawsuit argues that Louisiana's redistricting plan, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
- The case addresses the balance between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution's promise of equal protection.
- There are twelve plaintiffs in the case, including Phillip "Bert" Callais and others with limited public information.
- The nature of the case highlights how significant legal challenges often come from lawyers rather than directly from citizens.
