By John Persico Jr. (with Metis AI Partner)
There are moments when I read a Supreme Court decision and wonder—not about the law—but about the underlying thinking. The recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais is one of those moments.
The Court struck down Louisiana’s attempt to create a second majority-Black congressional district, calling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. On its face, that sounds principled—race should not dominate political decisions. A clean, simple rule.
But simple rules often fail in complex systems. And voting in America is nothing if not a complex system.
The Problem the Court Pretends Not to See
Let’s start with a basic fact: people are not randomly distributed. I learned this in my doctoral program when doing work with displaced workers on the Iron Range in Minnesota. We used a technique called “Stratified Random Sampling” to obtain more representative samples than you would get with simple Random Sampling.
People have never been randomly distributed. Not by race. Not by income. Not by religion. Not by education. There are Black neighborhoods, Indian neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods and Asian neighborhoods, not to mention rich neighborhoods, elderly neighborhoods, and too many other stratified neighborhoods to name.
If you’ve spent any time looking at maps—real maps, not legal abstractions—you know this immediately. Neighborhoods cluster. Communities form. History leaves footprints.
And race, in particular, has left very deep footprints in this country.
So when we draw voting districts “without regard to race,” we are not creating neutrality. We are simply accepting the existing distribution as given, as if it emerged from a fair process.
It didn’t.
A Little Statistics (Without the Headache)
In my former life working with Deming’s ideas, I learned something fundamental:
how you sample determines what you see.
If you take a simple random sample of a population that is unevenly distributed, you risk missing important subgroups. That’s not bias—that’s bad design.
The fix is straightforward: stratified sampling. You deliberately ensure that meaningful subgroups are represented.
Now translate that into voting:
- Minority populations are often geographically clustered
- Voting patterns often correlate with those populations
- Without intentional structure, representation can become distorted
Majority-minority districts are not some strange political invention. They are, in effect, a design correction—an attempt to ensure that a non-random population is not misrepresented by a “neutral” process.
The Court looks at this and says: “You’re using race.”
I look at it and say: “You’re ignoring reality.”
The Illusion of “Colorblindness”
The current legal trend emphasizes what is often called a “colorblind” approach. The idea sounds noble: treat individuals without regard to race.
But here’s the problem:
a colorblind rule applied to a system shaped by race is not neutral—it is preservative.
It preserves whatever inequalities already exist.
If race were not already a factor in housing, education, income, and yes, voting patterns, then ignoring it might make sense. But it is a factor. It has always been a factor.
So we end up in a strange place:
- Race shapes outcomes in reality
- But the law increasingly refuses to acknowledge it in design
That’s not neutrality. That’s selective blindness.
Let’s Be Honest About Politics
There is another layer here that we should not politely ignore.
Political actors understand these dynamics very well. They know that race correlates with voting behavior. They know that how districts are drawn can shift power.
So when cases like this are brought forward, they are not just abstract constitutional debates. They are strategic moves in a larger political game.
To pretend otherwise is to confuse theory with practice.
What Kind of Fairness Do We Want?
At the heart of this issue is a simple but uncomfortable question:
What do we mean by fairness?
The Court is increasingly focused on process fairness:
- The rules must not explicitly use race
But many of us are concerned with outcome fairness:
- Do people actually have a meaningful opportunity to elect representatives?
These are not the same thing.
You can have perfectly “neutral” rules that produce systematically uneven outcomes. Anyone who has studied systems—business, education, healthcare—knows this.
Deming warned us about this decades ago. A system can be working exactly as designed and still produce poor results.
The Deeper Issue
This is not really about Louisiana.
It is about whether we are willing to design systems that acknowledge reality, or whether we prefer systems that look fair on paper while ignoring how the world actually works.
Race has been a factor in America since before it was a country. It continues to shape where people live, how they vote, and what opportunities they have.
You can pass a law that says, “Don’t consider race.”
But you cannot pass a law that makes race irrelevant.
A Final Thought
There’s an old saying in quality management:
“If you don’t understand variation, you will mismanage the system.”
The Supreme Court, in this case, seems less concerned with understanding variation than with enforcing a rule.
That may satisfy a legal doctrine.
But it does not necessarily produce a fair system.
And in the long run, systems—not doctrines—determine outcomes.
Conclusions:
Do you think the six to three vote on this issue by party line represents a vote for fairness? Not since the days of slavery have we had a Supreme Court so stacked with partisan advocates. Almost every one of their votes leans towards the policies of Trump and his sycophantic Republican followers. The Supreme Court is not about the pursuit of law although it tries to pretend it is. The Supreme Court has little or no concern with upholding the Constitution of the USA. It is a biased groups of Justices willing to ignore the Constitution to further the aims of a Republican Party gone off the rails. A party with an agenda to support corporate interests over the interests of the people and to support laws that favor a decrease in the power of the people to run a democratic nation. There is a belief by many in a “Prosperity Gospel” today that preaches that the rich are smarter, harder working and have more rights to run the country than the poor.
If you are poor, they are coming for your vote. And the Supreme Court decision will help them get it.
This conservative trend was already well underway when in 2017, a billionaire real-estate developer named Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States of America. In addition to the hard core conservative beliefs of many mainstream Republicans, Trump added the once discredited idea of American Isolationism. We would now put America first, no matter what. No more negotiations with other nations unless it was clear that we got the better of the deal. We would build a big wall to keep Mexicans and other immigrants out and we would renege on our trade deals with China and Europe. About the only country that Trump liked was Russia. Eventually, he agreed to give Alaska and parts of Canada back to Russia.
I am 39 years old and have two children. I have never worked (at least outside of the home) as women have not been allowed to work since 2022 when they passed the “Women in the Home Law” as it was popularly called. The Federal government passed the law and it was ratified by every state and municipality in the nation. Some places tried to hold out but the government cut off all funding to them until they capitulated. This law effectively outlawed women working. It also barred women from the military. Ten years later (2032) they passed the “Mandatory Birth Act.” This bill proscribes that every woman (physically able to) must give birth to at least two children. Any woman who reaches the age of 32 and still has not given birth to two children is forcibly removed to a National Birthing Center where she will be artificially impregnated and kept confined until she has had at least two healthy children. Sickly or unhealthy children are sent to Disposal Camps where they are “recycled” per official government propaganda. No one is quite sure what happens during recycling but the children are never seen again.
nations. Since banning imports of such items, we have created millions of jobs making goods that were once made in low wage countries. The demand for such goods has skyrocketed but now we are providing them. Unfortunately, the wages and education needed for such work is still low. My husband did not finish high school but most men in our town do not. The Fathers have repeatedly stated that real men don’t need higher education. (I will talk more about education later.)
not allowed in the living room when his sports are on except to bring in some beer or chips. This does not really bother me much as I have plenty to do with the kids, housecleaning, cooking and all. I have my own TV in my sewing room where I can watch any of the approved programs for women. We have 30 different “Women Only” channels where I can learn more about cooking and cleaning and how to be a good wife. There are some good romances and family drama stories that are occasionally on. I look forward to watching these when the kids are in bed.
Libraries are now mostly museums. With the passage of the “Books Only Lie Bill” in 2038, all funds to public libraries were cut. The Fathers decried that books did nothing but cause trouble and stir up discontent. Anything citizens really needed to know could be found on the “Citizens Channels” offered by the government Department of Public Wisdom. There are over 100 of these channels which are available on public TV. They are on 24/7 and offer many programs for good citizenship. Some of the programs are:
Brink: I might put it a little different way. I think those of us who are such strong supporters within the U.S. government, within the American population, for Ukraine, support Ukraine because we see, or we think we see, and understand the future that Ukrainians want. And that is a future where Ukraine is free, independent, prosperous, sovereign and gets to decide its own future. To us, as Americans, it really appeals to also who we are. So, what I would hope, what I plan to do and what we are doing is supporting Ukraine in this immediate task of prevailing in its effort to defend itself that is crucially important. I think everybody would agree. And I think the government here and the people here would agree that another important task is and will be and will remain the reform effort, which will secure Ukraine for a future for Ukrainian children and their children.
Satan: “Do you want to concede and I will just take them all down to Hell?”
God: “The interesting thing about humans is not their stupidity and evilness. It’s the surprising amount of love that they can sometimes show for others. I am ever the optimist. That is my role, to be the Eternal Optimist. I have had hopes since the first cave men and since Moses and Socrates and Jesus and Mohammed and Gandhi and King and Mandela that humans have a spark in them. A spark that when ignited can change themselves and the world into something beautiful. Something that is so beautiful, it is even beyond anything I might have created.”
Satan: “You know I don’t care one way or the other. I have no feelings to be hurt. I cannot gloat or feel any satisfaction. Whenever, a new soul comes down to Hell, it is no sense of pride or satisfaction to me. These humans seem to mistake my logic and justice for evil. I am the parent who dispenses the discipline and they see me as the mean and cruel one.”
Satan: “But they never learn. They are shortsighted, petty, vindictive and greedy. Do you really think they care about your teachings or precious commitment to love and peace? They would rather fight wars and dominate others. They even fight wars in your name. Their religions scream for violence over other religions. Their leaders preach victory over other nations. Their minion’s rape and pillage in the name of some esoteric ideology. They all believe they are superior to each other. They send their own children to die in wars of so called freedom and liberation. They abuse and murder their own spouses at alarming rates. They teach their offspring at an early age to be intolerant of other races. And they pray in your name for the power to be successful in all of these efforts. They invoke prayers to you before murdering millions. How can you listen to these prayers and want to help these hypocrites.”
God: “You count them out too fast. The clock was close to 12 with nuclear weapons but as you noted, they carefully avoided destroying themselves. They are often very shortsighted and many of them will never be long-term thinkers. However, there are enough who care and who are passionate enough about others to help save humanity. I can’t help being filled with astonishment at the love that humans frequently have for each other.”
Aging Capriciously 