Letter to the Editor: Callais and backward progressive logic
Published 11:15 am Tuesday, July 7, 2026
The Courier-Herald published my letter in the June 17th edition regarding the recent Louisiana v Callais redistricting case. In that letter, I recommended that people read the actual decision from the Supreme Court (all decisions are public information). It sets forth the history of the case, legal precedents and how the Constitution narrowly limits the circumstances where discrimination based on race is allowed. I repeat my recommendation to read it.
Obviously, reader Larry Benson ignored my advice and didn’t read the Court’s opinion. He evidently read my letter with an emphasis on speed rather than comprehension and he raced to craft a letter (“The degradation of the Supreme Court,” published June 24) that misrepresents my summary of what the Court said. He used it as a vehicle to present some imaginative U.S. history and more of his ongoing anti-Trump and anti-Republican diatribe.
To condense the facts from that Supreme Court opinion: A lower court judge ruled that Louisiana needed to create a new Congressional district based solely on the race of the voters. A three-judge panel overruled her decision. In this recent case, the Supreme Court overruled her decision as being Constitutionally incorrect. Louisiana has now redrawn its districts to essentially be where they were before the lower court judge issued her (overruled) order.
I took a logic course in college. The professor thought I understood it pretty well and gave me an “A” grade. But the course did not explore that strange mental gerrymander called “progressive logic.”
In this case, the Supreme Court said “no” to a gerrymandered district created solely based on the color of a person’s skin. “Separate but equal” isn’t acceptable for restrooms, schools or busses. That was settled by the Constitution’s 14th and 15th Amendments and by the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s. But progressive logic argues that separate voting districts based solely on skin color are somehow different.
Justice Clarence Thomas (the longest-serving Justice on this Court) grew up in the segregated South. He received his law degree from Yale and is one of the strongest minds on the Court. His opinions are often viewed as “conservative” and he wrote a vigorous concurring opinion in the Louisiana case. His skin color is Black, but progressive logic says if Justice Thomas does not adhere to their views, he cannot be Black.
Progressives seek to divide and conquer, to divert our attention away from failed progressive policies (like open borders) and their lack of solutions for problems. This is a tactic to get and hold onto power. Race, religion, and economic status are three favorite levers for this. Leftist activists warn that their opponents are evil and must be stopped by whatever means are necessary- including disregard for the rule of law and undoing the Constitutional framework of this nation.
I encourage Americans not to fall for the left’s political schemes. Use common sense, lean into your faith, be observant, and be skeptical about what you hear and read in the media.
Kristopher Galvin
Black Diamond
