In the last two weeks, the Supreme Court has turned the idea of “equal protection under the law” on its head.

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment was written to ensure that all Americans, especially slaves and the descendants of slaves, enjoy equal protection or equal rights, regardless of race. A century later, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 implemented that principle by ensuring that the votes of Black people were worth the same as those of white voters, what was then called “one man one vote.”

But as far as the six conservative justices who control the Supreme Court today are concerned, the 14th Amendment is no longer needed to protect the concept of one person, one vote. And the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 may no longer be used to protect the very thing it was designed to protect — that Black votes must be worth as much as white votes.

The court’s majority are “originalists” who claim that American history should determine its decisions rather than strict legal precedent. Yet these six justices have completely forgotten the lessons of history. [In the April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-21951413.php), Justice Samuel Alito wrote that [“things have changed dramatically”](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf) since 1965, and that Black folks no longer needed the protections the Voting Rights Act had afforded. The majority ignored that it’s precisely because the Voting Rights Act protected their votes in the first place that Black people got close to the one person, one vote ideal.

In Callais, the court’s majority concluded that a Louisiana electoral map that had two majority Black congressional districts out of six in a state that’s about one-third Black illegally discriminated by race because race was used as a criterion in creating those districts.

If this sounds counterintuitive, that’s because it is.

The court’s majority has now come to the ludicrous assertion that “equal protection” means the opposite: that ensuring that Black votes in the South count as much as white votes violates equal protection by supposedly favoring Black voters over white ones.

What the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais means for Black voting