Originally published May 8, 2026 for our weekly Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor.  Subscribe to get weekly issues.

Bellwether Report – Week Ending May 8., 2026

By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor

“Our children long for realistic maps of the future that they can be proud of. Where are the cartographers of human purpose?” – Carl Sagan

“The world can doubtless never be well known by theory: practice is absolutely necessary; but surely it is of great use to a young man, before he sets out for that country, full of mazes, windings, and turnings, to have at least a general map of it, made by some experienced traveler.” – Lord Chesterfield

INTRODUCTION

This past week has seen the fall-out of the Supreme Court Ruling on race-based gerrymandering begin to form the new reality of power in American politics going forward.

We chose this news story because it is not only a bellwether for the new American political reality of power, but also a bellwether for the debate that cannot be rationally, logically held, how essential is biological ethnic unity and commonality to human thriving?

Were we a species studied by a distant advanced species would they conclude the human must fundamentally organize around biological ethnic unity?

For the record, this writer strongly suspects the essential binding unity is in our shared presuppositions regarding the nature of valuing, being, and knowing (axiology, ontology, epistemology, respectively).

This topic deserves further inquiry, but I don’t want to get too far afield from this narrower focus, the race-based dynamic at play here that puts the “left” in the position of defending ethnic biological unity necessity.

This report is not about the debate, but about the dynamics of power being shifted here because of this ruling.

Race essentialism has a connotation of supremacism and inferiority that makes it an unfit term to use to describe what’s going on here, though semantically, it perfectly describes it.

For this reason, I will use the term race necessity (or race necessitarianism) to describe what’s going on here. While all race essentialists are also race necessatarians, not all race necessatarians are race essentialists.

Race necessitarianism is all I am “accusing” anyone here of, be they on the “left” or the “right.”

The “left” has risen to power in this country mostly under the claim it will end racism, which is race essentialism. But what it offered instead was race necessitarianism. It concealed this fact by changing the definition of race to simply mean being white in the western world.

So, they could continue to have NFL endzones dog whistle to leftists “End Whitey” whenever the endzones had signs that said, “end racism.”

Whatever the reality, the motte of the left is to be decidedly against both race essentialism AND race necessitarianism, whereas a significant minority of the right has more openly embraced race necessitarianism while claiming not to be race essentialists.

The bailey of the left is the belief the white devil invented evil, a decidedly race essentialist mindset.

With this issue, the right must now reject the notion of not only race essentialism (which this writer believes the overwhelming majority already do) but also race necessitarianism (which perhaps most of them do).

This isn’t a one-off battle that will force the right to engage with this position, then move on; this is the foreseeable future of American political reality.

This report will give you the basic facts of this developing story, as we know them so far, then an assessment of what’s going on at what I call the base of action level. That base of action will return us to race necessitarianism and the question of gerrymandering in and of itself.

We will close this report with recommendations, which will be given from the perspective of the Americanist. We deliver this report loosely following the Sitrep model.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Supreme Court’s historic Louisiana v. Callais (April 29, 2026) ruling has redefined the terms of constitutional engagement at a foundational level.

The burden of proof to trigger Federal intervention in racial discrimination cases includes disproportionate outcomes. This means that any result that produces unequal results in proportion to population will justify discriminatory actions to assure proportional outcomes occur.

In drawing new voting districts, at all levels, from local to Federal, the Voting Rights Act was interpreted to allow race-based districts to be created to assure proportional racial outcomes in elections, at all levels of government. It not only allowed race-based districts, but it also mandated their creation.

Now, the new standard is PROOF of the intention to prevent other races from successfully running and winning elections, not simply the failure of the electorate to racially proportionally choose their representatives.

A key result of this is that Federal standards for drawing district maps are now no longer valid. All districts will be drawn by the bodies they represent. From the U.S. Congress to State Courts, the standards for district-drawing can be as many as there are districts, though no intentionally race-based districts can be created.

What’s at stake in this ruling boils down to political power. The results of this ruling are not certain, but as of right now the chances are fair to good that the Republicans will come out 5 to 13 seats ahead of the Democrats in the U.S. House gerrymandering wars.

This is only for the 2026 midterm elections.

Over the course of the next three years, Republicans will gain close to 200 state legislative seats in the South as a result of this decision.

The midterms are one thing, the Presidential election is another, and GOP gains through this ruling will only get deeper after many more Republican states finally have opportunities to act to change their districts.

The ruling invites gerrymandering war perpetuation at all levels of government for the foreseeable future, as every election will be as much about being able to draw the next round of district maps as executing policies (maybe even more so).

James Woodall, a former NAACP president in Georgia, was quoted by Stateline. He offered some encouragement to the progressives, suggesting there may still be some legal room to enforce the principles of the Voting Rights Act.

He also offered a sobering take on the new dynamic of race in this country following this ruling.

He declared, “Practically, what this now means is that Black voters equal Democrat. And in order for Black people to have political power, we will need to separate ourselves – and I hate to say this – we are going to have to separate ourselves practically from that assumption.”

The days of the black voter being a reliable Democrat in a reliable black district are over.

Race politics itself could be over, or at least significantly blunted. The Democrat Party, if it survives its inundation of anti-American progressivism, will have to treat the black voter like a human voter. The power of the white devil has been reduced, if not ended, if the black victim identity is no longer an effective political tool.

BACKGROUND

1. THE CAJUN FIGHT – In June of 2022, a Federal Judge ruled the 2022 Louisiana District Map was unconstitutional because it did not have enough black districts to assure proportional black representation.

In 2023, Louisiana created SB8, a second black majority district, to meet the de facto racial quota. In early 2024, a class action suit was filed from plaintiffs who are referred to as the Callais plaintiffs. They claim the racially created district violates their 14^th Amendment Rights.

The plaintiffs are looking at two recent rulings that began to question the constitutionality of race-based districts. One was Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2024; upholding a map) and Allen v. Milligan (2023; VRA enforcement in Alabama),

In November of 2024 another case was joined with this case, assuring this case would be the bellwether for voting district standards for decades to come.

2. THE RULING – By a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the standard for determining racial discrimination in voting is not in the results, but in the proof the results were intentionally manipulated. Failure to show more than disproportionate outcomes will result in no relief from the courts.

Justice Alito wrote for the majority. He wrote, “Held:  Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.  Pp. 17–36. (a) The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.

“Section 2(b) establishes that a violation occurs when political processes are ‘not equally open to participation by’ members of a racial group ‘in that [they] have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to . . . elect representatives of their choice.’

“The key concept is ‘less opportunity than other members of the electorate,’ which sets a baseline against which to assess the opportunity of minority voters.  That baseline—the opportunity that any given group of voters has to elect their candidate of choice—depends on the voting preferences of other voters in the district. 

“For example, in a district where most voters prefer Democratic candidates, a Republican voter in that district will have a low chance of securing the election of his or her preferred candidate.  The roster of voters who end up in a given district depends, in turn, on the districting criteria the State uses to draw a legislative map.

 “Thus, the ‘opportunity’ of these ‘members of the electorate’ to contribute their votes to a winning cause is whatever opportunity results from the application of the State’s combination of permissible districting criteria.

That is what a randomly selected individual voter and group of voters can expect regarding their opportunity to elect their preferred candidate. Under §2, a minority voter is entitled to nothing less and nothing more.”

Justice Kagan wrote the dissent. In her dissent, racial voting to assure your representatives are the same race as you is more important than assuring Americans don’t vote based on race. If race is more essential than the political issues, than what is the legitimization of that political system at all?

Her dissent reflects the progressive worldview that race is essential to the self and having the self’s race represent them is more essential than establishing a rule of law standard that could be called “color blind.”

Continuing to perpetuate racial sectarianism is a sacrifice Kagan is willing to have us all pay, for the good of race-driven politics.

She asserted, “Even if the State has deprived those citizens (but not their majority neighbors) of all opportunity to ‘elect representatives of their choice,’ the law will not protect them.

“…The majority has made its own assessment of current needs… and concluded that preventing racial vote dilution does not count among them.  So once again, ‘in the absence of proof of intentional discrimination,’ the right to vote gives minority citizens ‘nothing more than the right to cast meaningless ballots.’ 

“The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.  In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process.”

3. THE IMMEDIATE FALLOUT – Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry suspended six U.S. House elections so the legislature would be able to draw a new map eliminating the two black districts. This move was challenged in the courts by civil rights groups.

This triggered an expedited judgment request by the “non-African” plaintiffs in Callais, who argued their rights would be violated if the elections went through with the unconstitutional districts. On May 5, 2026, the judgment was fast-tracked by Justice Samuel Alito. This created opportunities for a few Republican states to move before the midterm elections to change district maps in their favor.

Alito’s decision has been challenged by black voters in the districts being eliminated. In addition to Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee are now looking to draw new district maps as well in special legislative sessions.

Georgia MIGHT have a path to redraw some maps, but that path is less clear than the others mentioned.

UPDATE: Tennessee has already passed a new districting bill, which triggered a physical altercation in the legislature.

CURRENT SITUATION

Now that the legal eagles have had time to digest the new reality of power, Republicans and Democrats are looking for ways to maximize opportunity (for the GOP) and minimize harm (for the DNC). Only a handful of GOP states can move to take advantage of this ruling before the midterm elections.

Underneath the national drama are 50 state dramas and hundreds of local dramas being played out across America even as we create this report.

The fundamental question, the constitutionality of “gerrymandering” at all, has yet to be addressed, and both sides seem more than content to preserve that political weapon for themselves.

Republicans are looking for cheap, easy ways to eliminate black (and thus Democrat) districts. One way is to reinstate versions of existing maps with minor edits. Some GOP states have laws that allow for off-cycle redraws, which would allow for state and local districts to be redrawn before the 2026 midterms.

With SCOTUS effectively ruling that partisan gerrymandering (within reason) is ok, Map Makers are mostly only constrained by their imaginations when it comes to creating political advantage for the party in power.

Democrat states are looking to pass state laws protecting their state from the SCOTUS ruling, though it is not certain this path will be fruitful. The next legal challenge might come from these states, where race-based districts were not ordered or approved by the Federal government.

ASSESSMENT

The initial unfolding of the new political reality of power suggests the rise of the map maker, the one who draws the maps of the new districts, the constantly new districts, perhaps after each switch of party in power.

This is not a predictive analysis, rather, this seems to be the foregone conclusion, and the new reality of power they are operating under.

District maps are now drawn by the powers they represent, with the only Federal guidance being this; you can’t use disproportionate outcomes to justify the creating of a race-based district. Gerrymandering as a practice has been given even more free rein than it did before.

Race-based politics has taken a serious hit, but the check is in the mail for that effect, as the activist power of the left is existentially formed around the white devil narrative. Without the white devil, who can dismantle an argument with the charge, “but you’re a white male!”

The dissent by Kagen shows the fundamental divide between Americanists and progressives. Americans seek a world where our merits, our talents, and our integrity, are the central determiners of our fate, though not the sole determiner (for there is grace, mercy, and charity as well).

Progressives see a world where discrimination based on race in and of itself is not an existential issue, for their rule of law is based on interpreting the constitution through the lens of social justice.

We have described social justice in the past as being a de facto caste system, where the circumstance you are born into determines your value to society, and your role.

Kagen demonstrates this by assuming a minority black community in a white dominant community could not be equally divided politically as that white community, and that the central unity in that political action was not around race but around values, principles, and standards.

If Kagen is right, America is not a legitimate power, for it is built on the assumption that a people can be united around an idea alone, not a biological unity necessity. This, in part, is why American slavery became so vicious, for its people had to make the black man something less than human.

But it is also why that spirit couldn’t hold in a land whose very government was built on the spirit that kills such assumptions.

Kagen reveals a mind incapable of seeing the black race, or any race, as anything but a borg collective of samethink predetermined politically by the melanin levels in their skin. Kagen is a race necessitarian, at the very least, and an anti-Americanist at her core.

For Kagen, she recognizes that the shift in standards from a burden of outcome to a burden of intent fundamentally guts not only the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, but the heart of race-politicking progressive power.

Now that that black race cannot simply be an easily contained collective, progressives will have to address the individual needs of individual blacks, who will, by necessity, want to find a political opportunity for power, which can now only be found outside of racial necessity.

Immediately, the stage is set for the action that could kill race politics in America, the SCOTUS gerrymandering decision, becoming the accelerant of that fire in the short-term as GOP-held districts prepare to cull the black districts from their lands.

1. NOTE: Be sure to read our May 2026 MIA Report on May 29 when we will offer our Predictive Analysis in our Situation Report.

The fallout of this ruling is sure to be part of that report, for it has the likely potential of fundamentally altering American political gamesmanship at a time when AI is already doing similar work across multiple institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are Americanists in all walks of life, across all biological, socio-cultural, and even sacred lines. So, we presume there are Americanists in government, in political parties, and in activist groups.

What we are recommending can be implemented, or initiated, in various ways according to the context of the institution you as an American find yourself in.

Where you have the power, these are the goals we recommend your individual action contribute towards making happen.

We believe there are two fronts that must be pursued at the same time, challenging partisan gerrymandering and creating American political parties.

The first one is to challenge the notion of partisan gerrymandering in the first place. This is a principle that is anathema to the American spirit.

While we recognize mapping districts is complex, and that there are no neat, cut and dry solutions, having little to no standards nationally seems anti-thetical to individual-based politics. This is Americanism versus social politics, progressivism (and apparently US conservatism as well).

While relying primarily on geographical contiguity in and of itself cannot be the only standard for drawing just districts, we suggest it becomes the heavily favored outcome. Where exceptions become the rule, as they do today, tribal partisanship takes the place of free and open political discourse, development, and governance.

Tribal partisanship is social justice.

The parties become identified by their tribe, not their ideas. The ideas are the ones that give your tribe coercive advantage over other tribes, nothing more.

The individual dies under the pressure of not voting against his tribe’s own interests, even if their “useful” ideas don’t align with the individual’s own self-stewarded ones.

The right’s willingness to use gerrymandering for its own tribal ends is as anti-American, by our standards, as the left’s willingness to use gerrymandering to do the same, even if it means fueling racial partisanship.

Where local and state laws can be changed to create district mapping standards more aligned with Americanism, this should be done. Where you have the power to make this happen, through appeal or as a government representative, do so.

Nationally, we should move to pass an amendment that would create a national district map standard aligned with individual liberty, not tribalism, be it social justice or US conservatism.

The second front is far more difficult, and one we’ve been calling on for a while now, the creation of American political parties that reflect the “natural” political divide of an American people.

We say this because neither major party represents American individual liberty. The Democrats are progressives, a nation born from within America, but ultimately in disagreement with her.

The Republicans are Conservative US, not America. They’re much closer to Americanism than the progressives, but they’re not quite there. They sacrifice liberty for the sake of American “Greatness,” for instance.

We argue the conservatives are mostly within a social justice mindset, it’s just that their social classes are defined by being born and raised “American.”

The paths those thoughts lead to sometimes create real white devils, but mostly they create “progressives” as afraid of seeing their ideas be rejected consensually by the public as progressives are.

These US Conservatives are multi-ethnic and are mostly more Americanist in their race politics views than not, though a significant minority are race necessitarians, and a much smaller minority are race essentialists. From that group, there be real white devils for the progressives to find and amplify.

Among these groups are yet Americans within, people who just can’t yet see how anti-American their own parties are.

Outside of these groups, most Americans don’t know who their fellow Americans are. They might assume there are too few left, or they may have given up altogether.

We believe the number of Americans in this country is 60% or more, that when people confront the reality of power difference between no American constitutional protections under progressive standards of governance and American rule of law, they will run back to American rule of law. Let us hope they don’t realize this before running back is no longer an option.

So far, we have yet to see any serious new American political party grass-roots efforts emerging. We have the domain Americanist.Party, as one suggested placeholder for such a movement.

We believe it must come from one central party that recognizes its goal is to vanquish the Democrats and Republicans, then become 2-3 parties that reflect the natural divisions of a people willing to see their ideas die in the hearts of their neighbors consensually.

We believe the natural divisions of political power outside of tribalism, are to fetishize the weak to vanquish the strong or fetishize the strong to vanquish the weak. The party that rises through fetishizing the weak will simply redefine the strong in fact as still being the weak in spirit, like progressives do when they gain power today.

This is what the claim of “systemic racism” creates, a de facto strong class that is still spiritually weak. This is a job that can never be completed, lest the champion of the weak lose its purpose, its justification for power.

Within Americanism, this type of political exploitation can be contained so that even when one party dominates the other, the people outside of political power have no existential threat from it in terms of their own capacity to pursue being a self-stewarded individual.

This is America’s superpower, the home of the brave power, the power to resist violence when you fairly lose or even when you fear you MIGHT fairly lose.

This spirit has been seen in traces throughout known human history, from China to Rome to Aksum, but never has a land like ours had such an opportunity to let that superpower thrive.

Let us hope and pray and work to overcome the spirits, the factions that seek in their ignorance to end that superpower either for the good of the whole or the good of being great.

FURTHER RESOURCES:

One Person, One Vote: A Surprising History of Gerrymandering in America – Nick Seabrook

Gerrymandering in America – Michael Latner, Charles Anthony Smith, Anthony J. McGann

Gerrymandering: The Politics of Redistricting in the United States – Stephen K. Medvic