Democrats see everything in black and white — as in skin color and race. They believe whites are responsible for every wrong done to (and, it seems, by) blacks. Simultaneously, they argue that blacks must vote for Democrats because they seem to believe that blacks are as incapable of thinking for themselves as they are of obtaining a voter ID.

If Democrats’ position is not racism, I don’t know what is.

So, it’s little surprise that they attacked Texas Republicans’ gerrymandering on racial grounds, suing — and winning — in lower courts. (For fun, take a gander at Judge Jerry Smith’s blistering dissent in that case.) However, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday saw through the charade and let stand, for now, the new congressional map Texas legislators drew this past summer. Its order on Thursday was a stay on that lower court ruling, leaving the new Texas map in place for the 2026 midterms.

The current battle started with President Donald Trump’s call for rare but not unheard of mid-decade redistricting. He was transparent about the fact that doing so would help Republicans in next year’s midterm elections. His plain speaking really irritates Democrats; they prefer hiding their motives.

“We must keep the Majority at all costs,” Trump declared on social media last month.

Texas was first up, but its summer effort was hardly new territory. Democrats are masters at gerrymandering for their own partisan advantage. Heck, I’m old enough to remember when they did it in 2022.

In other words, Texas Republicans were just fighting fire with fire. Democrats literally fled the state to prevent a quorum and a vote, but eventually they were shamed into returning. Shamed and emboldened by California’s efforts to counter the five-seat gain for Texas Republicans.

Several other states are undertaking similar redistricting efforts as the battle heats up.

For educational purposes, I’d like to point to how the Associated Press framed the Texas effort:

The new map eliminated five of the state’s nine “coalition” districts, where no minority group has a majority but together they outnumber non-Hispanic white voters. The total number of congressional districts in which minorities make up a majority of voting-age citizens dropped from 16 to 14.

Yet Republicans argued the map is better for minority voters. There’s a new, eighth Hispanic-majority district, and two Black-majority districts instead of none.

But critics consider that the Hispanic or Black majority in each district is so slim that white voters, who tend to turn out in larger percentages, will control election results.

Now, let’s break that down. Democrats argue that discounting the racial demographics of the “coalition” districts is racist. Democrats also argue that creating new majority Hispanic and black districts is racist because those minorities don’t turn out to vote in numbers equal to white voters. Ergo, too many white voters voting is racist.

Does this feel like an incredibly cynical game to anyone else?

Normally, Democrats demand majority-minority districts because they win more seats by segregating minorities into separate but equal districts. Does that sound familiar?

In Texas, Democrats are making the opposite argument — that majority-minority districts are bad.

In Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, Justice Elena Kagan went to bat for them. “This Court’s stay guarantees that Texas’s new map, with all its enhanced partisan advantage, will govern next year’s elections for the House of Representatives. And this Court’s stay ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race,” Kagan complained. “And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.”

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin echoed her, insisting that allowing “Texas Republicans’ rigged, racially gerrymandered maps to go into effect is wrong — both morally and legally.”

Again, Democrats’ general rule of thumb is to gerrymander districts along racial lines. Somehow, they argue, that upholds the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

However, writing for the Court’s majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that Texas explicitly said politics, not race, was the motivation for the new map, rendering racial objections moot. “The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” he wrote. The challengers didn’t address that, he noted, “giving rise to a strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race.”

Gerrymandering almost always gets ugly, no matter which party is doing it. Ridiculous maps with districts stretching like rubber bands aren’t unusual. But if one side gets carte blanche to do it, the other side should as well.

Follow Nate Jackson on X/Twitter.