Democrats have spent years presenting themselves as defenders of democratic institutions. That message becomes significantly harder to sustain when party leaders openly criticize constitutional rulings simply because those rulings disrupt their political strategy.
That contradiction was on full display during a recent interview on MSNOW when Rep. Susan DelBene reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to block Louisiana’s race-based congressional map.
DelBene called the ruling a “sad day for democracy.”
The statement was revealing—not simply because of its rhetoric, but because of what the underlying case actually involved.
The Supreme Court stepped in after concerns that Louisiana’s congressional map relied too heavily on race when drawing district boundaries. The broader constitutional question is straightforward: should states be allowed to sort voters by race when determining political representation?
For many Democrats, the answer appears to be yes—at least when doing so benefits their electoral prospects.
During the interview, DelBene attempted to shift the conversation away from the constitutional concerns surrounding the map itself. Instead, she argued that courts should not be involved in decisions like this and suggested Congress should rewrite voting laws.
That argument ignores the basic function of the judiciary.
Courts exist to determine whether government actions comply with constitutional protections. When legislatures create policies that potentially violate equal protection principles, judicial review is not activism—it is a core constitutional responsibility.
DelBene also accused Republicans of attempting to “rig the system” because they are allegedly losing support nationwide.
That argument became even more contradictory when MSNOW raised the possibility of Democrats aggressively redrawing congressional districts in states like California to offset Republican redistricting efforts in states such as Texas.
DelBene did not reject the idea.
Instead, the conversation reflected a broader problem that has increasingly defined modern redistricting battles: many politicians oppose gerrymandering only when the opposing party benefits from it.
That is not a serious institutional position, but a transactional one.
Hellbound and Down 