Republicans celebrate dismantling of the Voting Rights Act by launching redistricting in 7 southern states

April 29, 2026 was one of the worst days for American democracy. Over 60 years of voting rights dismantled and dismissed.

Watch out. After the conservative majority in the US Supreme Court’s destruction of the Voting Rights Act, Republicans are wasting no time in trying to wrest away Congressional districts from Black voters.

On April 29, the Supreme Court 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais significantly weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), limiting the use of race in creating majority-minority districts.

“For decades, the Voting Rights Act has helped ensure that communities of color have a fair opportunity to make their voices heard at the ballot box,” said Christine Chen, Executive Director of APIAVote. The Supreme Court “decision weakens one of the most important remaining safeguards against discrimination in our electoral system and threatens the progress that so many communities have fought hard to achieve. Today’s decision will make it easier for politicians to draw voting districts that let them choose their voters rather than empowering voters to choose their elected officials. ”

As of early 2025, In the 119th Congress there is a record number of 67 Black lawmakers serving in the 119th Congress, according to Spectrum News. This total includes 62 Democrats and five Republicans, with 62 serving in the House of Representatives and five in the Senate, marking the highest representation in US history. 

Currently, here are 15 congressional districts where Black voters make up a majority of the voting-age population. Each of these districts is currently represented by a Black Democrat.

According to an analysis by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter, the Callais ruling could eventually lead to a redistricting wave down in Dixie that could help Republicans flip as many as 19 majority-minority seats currently held by Democrats.

While majority-Black districts have historically been the primary vehicle for Black representation, most Black members of Congress now represent districts where Black voters are not the majority.

Although the main target was Black majority districts in the South, the SCOTUS ruling could also be used against Asian Americans or Latinos not only for Congressional districts but also local jurisdictions like school districts, cities and counties.

The districts which are vulnerable under the SCOTUS ruling  could be gerrymandered GOP controlled states in order to maintain their control of Congress. Because of Donald Trump's record-breaking unpopularity due to his dismal economic record, his harsh immigration policies, rising healthcare costs and his war against Iran.

According to Democracy Docket, while SCOTUS said redistricting based on race was illegal,  political gerrymandering is OK. The GOP is celebrating and wasting no time in implementing the court's astonishing decision.

• Alabama: Gov. Kay Ivey (R) called a special session to reinstate the state’s old gerrymander before the midterms — pending a greenlight from SCOTUS. 
  
  
• Louisiana: The state successfully suspended its US House primaries. There are already three lawsuits against the state for halting its active election and nullifying votes.
  
  
• Tennessee: In a move that may eliminate its one blue congressional seat and disenfranchise Black voters, Tennessee is now seeking to redistrict mid-cycle.
  
  
• South Carolina: Lawmakers and the state GOP have urged the governor to call for a special session to mid-cycle redistrict. 
  
  
• Georgia: The governor has said he won’t call a special session to redraw for 2026, but as we saw after Alabama’s 180, that could change.
  
  
• Florida: We’re waiting for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to sign the recently passed gerrymandered map. 
  
  
• Virginia: The Republican National Committee is appealing its loss in a third challenge to Virginia's 10-1 congressional map approved by voters last month.
  

There is a justifiable fear is that the SCOTUS decision will have a trickle down effect and affect local  legislative districts in the states and our AANHPI communities that have only recently been able to elect representatives that reflect them.

“When the Voting Rights Act is undermined, Black voters are harmed first. But the damage won’t stop there. The Supreme Court has gutted one of the last protections we have against racial discrimination in our democracy. It puts the political power of Asian Americans and communities of color at risk," said Asian Law Caucus' Executive Director Aarti Kohli.

"It leaves communities of color with fewer enforceable protections against unfair maps — and not just for Congress, but in state and local elections across the country. We stand with Black and Brown voters from Louisiana to every state where maps could now be redrawn to limit their voice," Kohli continued.

“The same protections that safeguard the voice of Black voters are the same ones that protect Asian Americans, immigrants, and language-minority communities. This decision is not isolated. It is the latest in a sustained assault on the right of communities of color to participate fully in our democracy. We will not let our rights be taken without a fight — in the courts, in our legislatures, and at the ballot box, together.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.

 

Radical US Supreme Court eviscerates the Voting Rights Act

Communities of color will have a harder time electing one of their own after the SCOTUS ruling.

It’s a dark day for American democracy. In a move that feels like a punch to the gut for those fighting for a seat at the table, the Supreme Court has once again signaled that the Voting Rights Act is more of a suggestion than a shield.

The Court’s 6-3 decision Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais — decided along the usual ideological fault lines — handed a win to those who want to keep the status quo, and a major loss to the AAPI and Black communities who are just looking for a fair shake in the voting booth.

The 6-3 vote was predictable. The conservative GOP majority ruled again putting personal idealogy above precedent. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett were in the majority overwhelming Justices Elena Kagel, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito essentially argued that Louisiana’s attempt to create a second majority-Black district relied too heavily on race. In the eyes of the conservative wing, trying to fix racial underrepresentation is, ironically, unconstitutional racial stereotyping.

'Colorblind' means blind to reality

We know what this means. Whether it’s the Vietnamese American hubs in the Gulf Coast or the Chinese and Filipino communities in Houston and Atlanta, or the South Asian suburbs in Silicon Valley, it means the Court has given a green light to map-makers to slice and dice our communities until our collective voice is just a whisper. As the dissenters noted, when you stop looking at race in a country where race still defines the political landscape, you aren’t being "colorblind"—you’re just being blind to reality.

Kagan argued that the majority is creating a "Catch-22" for states. If they don't consider race, they violate the Voting Rights Act; if they do, the Court strikes it down as a racial gerrymander.

The dissenters warned that this ruling makes it nearly impossible for minority communities — including our rapidly growing AAPI neighborhoods — to prove that their votes are being diluted. By making the legal bar so high, the Court is effectively telling these communities: "Your growth doesn't equal power."

“The consequences will extend far beyond Louisiana. Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial group in the country, and we are growing fastest in the South, where today’s decision gives legislators the most cover to draw us out of political power that our communities are fighting hard to build," states Asian Law Caucus' Executive Director Aarti Kohli.

“When the Voting Rights Act is undermined, Black voters are harmed first. But the damage won’t stop there. The Supreme Court has gutted one of the last protections we have against racial discrimination in our democracy. It puts the political power of Asian Americans and communities of color at risk," Kohli continued.

By making it harder to use the VRA to protect minority districts, the Court has given a green light to map-makers to slice and dice our communities until our collective voice is just a whisper. As the dissenters noted, when you stop looking at race in a country where race still defines the political landscape, you aren’t being "colorblind"—you’re just being blind to reality.

What does this mean for the 2026 midterms and beyond? For our community, it’s all about the "Cracking," a gerrymandering tactic that splits a cohesive group of voters (based on political party, race, or community interest) across multiple districts to dilute their voting power. By dividing this population, the group becomes a minority in each district, preventing them from electing their preferred candidates.

By making it nearly impossible to challenge maps that divide our growing populations in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, the Court is essentially trying to keep the "bamboo ceiling" firmly attached to the halls of power. When you divide a vibrant AAPI neighborhood across three different districts, you ensure that our specific needs—from language access to anti-hate legislation—never get a champion in Congress.

In California where a quarter of AAPIs in the US reside, the biggest immediate risk is at the city and county levels (like in San Jose, Oakland, or Los Angeles), where "Chinatowns" or "Little Saigons" can be split between districts to dilute their influence.

“We see what this means in practice: communities are unfairly split for partisan gains. A Chinatown carved between three districts," says the Asian Law Caucus. "That is how political power is taken — by design, with impunity, and now with the Supreme Court’s blessing. It means communities of color end up represented by politicians who don’t look like them, don’t know them, and don’t have to listen to them."

AAPI voters are currently considered "influential" in six of California’s 52 congressional districts. The ruling makes it harder to defend these lines if they are challenged as being "too racial" rather than "partisan."

View from the edge

The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais is just the latest blow in a nearly 15-year calculated  campaign by the Roberts Court and the powers that put them on the bench, to dismantle the Voting Rights Act. Legal experts and civil rights leaders often describe this as "death by a thousand cuts."

There is hope because some states -- like California and New York -- are crafting their own Voting Rights Acts but there is already a target on these laws. The conservative wing of the SCOTUS is already signaling that if these state laws focus "too much" on race to fix representation, they might strike those down, too.

So, what does this mean for the 2026 midterms and beyond? For our community, it’s all about the "Cracking," a gerrymandering tactic that splits a cohesive group of voters (based on political party, race, or community interest) across multiple districts to dilute their voting power. By dividing this population, the group becomes a minority in each district, preventing them from ever electing the candidates who might best represent their common interests and perspective.

By making it nearly impossible to challenge maps that divide our growing populations in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, the Court is essentially trying to keep the "bamboo ceiling" firmly attached to the halls of power. When you divide a vibrant AAPI neighborhood across three different districts, you ensure that our specific needs—from language access to anti-hate legislation—never get a champion in Congress.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

Asian Americans have a reason to celebrate Black History Month

Artists: Alex Chiu & Viva La Free

A mural at the Portland Chinatown Museum reads "We are hee as immigrants because Black freedom fiighters in the Civil Rights Movement fought for us to exist in this land."

If you’ve ever looked at the vibrant, diverse tapestry of Asian America today and wondered, "How did we get here?"—the answer isn't just found in a travel agency. It’s found in the streets of Selma, the lunch counters of Greensboro, and the halls of a Congress finally forced to reckon with its own soul.

To put it plainly: The 1965 Immigration Act wouldn't have happened without the Black Civil Rights Movement. And Asian Americans would not be the fastest growing ethnic group in the US, according to the US Census. Roughly 68% of Asian American adults are first generation immigrants.

February has been designated Black History Month and all communities of color, including th AANHPI communities are indebted to the Civil Rights Movement led by Black icons like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, John Lewis, Rosa Parks and so many others who literally bled on the streets to gain those rights so many take for granted today.

Here is how the fight for racial justice at home cracked open the door for millions of  immigrants from Asia.

The Hypocrisy of the "Golden Door"

Before the mid-60s, the US immigration system was, frankly, a mess of institutionalized racism. Since the 1920s, we had a "national-origins quota" that was designed to keep America as white as possible. If you were from Great Britain or Germany, the door was wide open. If you were from Asia? You were essentially persona non grata.

But as the Civil Rights Movement gained steam, the optics became impossible to ignore. How could the US claim to be the leader of the "Free World" while enforcing Jim Crow at home and "Europeans Only" at the border? The movement stripped the mask off the idea that discrimination was just "the way things are."

In 1965, the same momentum that gave us the Voting Rights Act gave us the Immigration and Nationality Act (also known as Hart-Celler). It did something revolutionary for the time: it abolished those racist quotas.

Instead of looking at your skin color or your country of origin, the law shifted to two main pillars:

• Family Reunification: If you had family here, you could bring them over.

• Specialized Skills: If you were a doctor, engineer, or scientist, the US wanted your talent.

The Wave Nobody Saw Coming

When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, he actually downplayed it. He said it "is not a revolutionary bill" and wouldn't "reshape the structure of our daily lives."

He was wrong.

Free from the old bans, Asian immigration didn't just grow; it exploded. We're talking about a 663% increase in just the first decade.The "Brain Drain": Highly educated professionals from India, the Philippines, and South Korea rushed to fill gaps in the American workforce.

Those higly educated professionals with specialized skills then used the "family" provision to bring their siblings, parents, and cousins.

Within the new law were provisions that eventually allowed for the influx of Southeast Asian refugees following the Vietnam War.

Before the 1960s, Asian Americans made up only 0.5% of the US population. The Act allowed for a massive increase in immigration, especially from South and Southeast Asia, growing the community to approximately 7% of the population today.

Why It matters today

It’s a powerful reminder of how interconnected our struggles are.

The Asian American community as we know it—our Chinatowns, our Manilatowns, K-towns and Japantowns, and Little Saigons, our suburban enclaves in Jersey City, Daly City and the San Gabriel Valley—those ethnic enclaves, originally born out of racial biases meant to corral us in and keep us out of other parts of the cities, are now sources of cultural pride and worthy of preservation and growth.

We are direct beneficiaries of the courage shown by Black activists who demanded that America live up to its promise of equality.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, while primarily focused on African Americans, provided legal protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin that applied to all people of color, including AAPI individuals. This set the stage for challenging discriminatory practices in employment, education, and public accommodation

Inspired by the Black Power movement and the fight for racial justice, young Asian Americans in the late 1960s began to unite across diverse ethnic lines (Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, etc.) to form a cohesive "Asian American" identity. This movement focused on fighting against racism, imperialism, and for social justice.

The era spurred the creation of ethnic studies programs, Asian American community organizations, and health centers, as activists demanded representation and resources tailored to their needs.

The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, benefited AAPI individuals who faced legal restrictions on marrying outside their race.

Unfortunately, today there are those in America feel threatened by immigrants of color. Encouraged and led by the regime of Donald Trump, the push for mass deportation isn't simply following the law; the aggressive enforcement

in too many cases federal authorities have expanded the list of "undesirable immigrants" to include those who are here legally or who are following the proper steps to eventuallly become citizens. Even US citizens have been victims of the regime's dragnet, detained for hours or months before ICE realizes its error.

There are conservative forces who would do away with the gains of the Civil Rights Movement. The US Supreme Court, once the champion of civil rights, has weakened the Voting Rights Act so that it is a shadow of itself and allowed conservative lawmakers to impose new Jim Crow-like barriers to voting. 

The Civil Rights Movement didn’t just change the law for Black Americans; it changed the very definition of who gets to be an American. 

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

Census lists communities where Asian bilingual ballots will be required

One of the reasons that recent elections saw an increase in AAPI voters was  because of the availability of bilingual ballots and voting material.

The Census Bureau released its updated list of jurisdictions that are required by the federal Voting Rights Act to provide translated ballots, voting materials, and bilingual poll workers for specific language minority groups.

"This list of cities and counties is just a snapshot of the great diversity Asian Americans bring to America, and a reflection of the needs of the fastest growing population of any racial or ethnic group in the country," said Susana Lorenzo-Giguere, Senior Staff Attorney of the Democracy Program at Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

“Voting is a sacred part of our democracy as Americans. For many Asian Americans who speak limited English, the lack of language assistance and bilingual ballots is an unfair barrier to participating in the electoral process," she continued. "The Voting Rights Act promises language access to Americans who cannot speak English well, and speak specific languages, including several Asian languages.

The Language Minority Provisions was included in the 1965 Voting Rights Act because Congress found that:

[T]hrough the use of various practices and procedures, citizens of language minorities have been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. Among other factors, the denial of the right to vote of such minority group citizens is ordinarily directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation. 

The language provision is critical for Asian American voters, many of whom are limited English speaking. 

Congress declared that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting these practices, and by prescribing other remedial devices such as providing election material in the language of all voters.

The requirements of the law are straightforward: all election information that is available in English must also be available in the minority language so that all citizens will have an effective opportunity to register, learn the details of the elections, and cast a free and effective ballot.

As required by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act), as amended, this notice publishes the U.S. Census Bureau's Director's determinations as to which jurisdictions are subject to the minority language assistance provisions of the Act. As of this date, those jurisdictions that are listed in this Notice as covered by Section 203 have a legal obligation to provide the minority language assistance prescribed by the Act.

Earlier this year, AALDEF filed a Section 203 complaint against Hamtramck, Michigan over its failure to provide election materials and assistance in Bengali. As a result, the court entered a consent decree ordering Hamtramck’s Bengali language election program for four years. And in 2014, AALDEF filed a complaint against Philadelphia City Commissioners over denial of language access to voters under a municipal ordinance.

The bilingual information may be one of the reasons top officials of Hamtramck are Muslim including the five City Council members and the mayor.

The following jurisdictions are mandated to provide information and assistance in the specific Asian languages (with newly covered jurisdictions/languages in bold italics):

ALASKA
Aleutians West Census Area: Filipino
Kodiak Island Borough: Filipino

CALIFORNIA
Alameda County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Filipino, Vietnamese
Contra Costa County: Chinese (including Taiwanese)
Los Angeles County: Cambodian, Chinese (including Taiwanese), Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese
Orange County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Korean, Vietnamese
Sacramento County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Vietnamese
San Diego County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Filipino Vietnamese
San Francisco County: Chinese (including Taiwanese)
San Mateo County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Filipino
Santa Clara County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Filipino, Vietnamese

HAWAII
Honolulu County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Filipino
Maui County: Filipino

ILLINOIS
Cook County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Asian Indian (including Sikh)

MASSACHUSETTS
Lowell city: Cambodian
Malden city: Chinese (including Taiwanese)
Quincy city: Chinese (including Taiwanese)
Randolph Town city: Vietnamese

MICHIGAN
Hamtramck city: Bangladeshi

MINNESOTA
Ramsey County: Hmong

NEVADA
Clark County: Filipino

NEW JERSEY
Bergen County: Korean
Middlesex County: Asian Indian (including Sikh)

NEW YORK
Kings County (Brooklyn): Chinese (including Taiwanese)
New York County (Manhattan): Chinese (including Taiwanese)
Queens County (Queens): Bangladeshi, Chinese (including Taiwanese), Korean, Asian Indian (including Sikh)

PENNSYLVANIA
Philadelphia County: Chinese (including Taiwanese)

TEXAS
Dallas County: Vietnamese
Harris County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Vietnamese
Tarrant County: Vietnamese

VIRGINIA
Fairfax County: Vietnamese

WASHINGTON
King County: Chinese (including Taiwanese), Vietnamese

AALDEF conducts surveys in various Asian languages.

There are now 32 jurisdictions in 14 states mandated by Section 203 to provide voters with Asian language election information assistance, an increase of five jurisdictions from the Census Bureau’s determinations in 2016, consistent with the census reports showing that Asian Americans are the fastest growing population among all racial and ethnic groups in the United States in the last decade.

For the first time in the United States, the Hmong language is covered under the Voting Rights Act. Minnesota has the largest population of Hmong Americans, and newly covered Ramsey County, Minnesota, is the hometown and birthplace of U.S. Olympic gold medalist Suni Lee.

AALDEF especially welcomes the addition of the Chinese language in Philadelphia, and the Vietnamese language in Randolph, two of the nine new jurisdictions covered by Section 203 in which AALDEF has regularly conducted its multilingual exit poll of Asian American voters, the largest of its kind in the nation. AALDEF’s Asian American exit poll results were cited when Congress expanded the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 1992 to cover more Asian American communities.

When the Census certifies that 5% or more than 10,000 voting-age citizens in a town or county speak another language, are limited English speaking, and have a higher illiteracy rate than the national illiteracy rate, the jurisdictions must translate ballots, voter registration forms, voting instructions, and all other voting materials they provide in English. They must also provide translated oral assistance on election matters at polling places. The list of covered jurisdictions and the languages for translated voting materials is now updated every five years, as a result of the 2006 amendments to the Voting Rights Act.

AAPI groups decry SCOTUS decision to weaken Voting Rights Act

ACLU

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld two electoral policies in Arizona that suppress voting rights for historically-marginalized communities.

"The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold anti-democratic, discriminatory voting laws in the state of Arizona are an affront to the ideals of American democracy," said Christine Chen, Executive Director of Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote.

"Laws, such as these, not only attempt to solve problems that do not exist, but intentionally target voters from historically-marginalized communities, making it harder for them to vote.” 

The Supreme Court’s decision July 1 in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee occurs at a time time in our nation’s history when the Republican Party is trying to narrow the right to vote and weaken the Voting Rights Act. More than a dozen states have already enacted 22 restrictive voting laws. There are 61 restrictive voting bills still pending in 18 states, according to NBC.

“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to protect and prevent discrimination at the polls like this, and did for many decades," said Chen. "These protections were weakened in 2013 in the Shelby v. Holder decision, and the Brnovich v. DNC decision has further mangled the Voting Rights of 1965 beyond recognition.

Justice Elena Kagan stressed in her dissent, the court’s decision comes “at a perilous moment for the Nation’s commitment to equal citizenship … in an era of voting-rights retrenchment — when too many states and localities are restricting access to voting in ways that will predictably deprive members of minority groups of equal access to the ballot box.”

The court rejected a lower court decision that ruled that two of Arizona's laws could violate the federal Voting Rights Act by adversely affected the voting rights of some people, especially voters of color.

SCOTUS upheld two voting practices in Arizona: the state trashes ballots that are provisional, the ones cast in the wrong precincts on Election Day; and Arizona limits who can return early ballots on behalf of voters to family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and election officials.

Justice Samuel Alito, --one of three activist conservatives Justices appointed by Donald Trump -- writing for the conservative majority arguing that the possible impact among racial or ethnic groups isn’t enough to make voting laws illegal. “The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote,” he wrote in upholding the Arizona restrictions.

"We know that, as we speak, voters who are AAPI, Black, Latino, Native American, and voters with disabilities, in particular, face barriers to making their voices heard at the polls," Chen continued.

The 2018 and 2020 elections showed the emergence of the fast-growing AAPI community in American politics, making an impact in local and national races. Voting advocates worry that the court's decision might dampen that movement.

“In the 2020 election, Asian American and Pacific Islander voters turned out in record numbers and made our voices heard, especially in states like Georgia and Texas," said Linda Ng, National President of the OCA -- Asian Pacific American Advocates. She added that the court's decision  "threatens our communities’ hard-earned progress and bolsters the coordinated assault on voting rights that we’re witnessing in state legislatures.

“Make no mistake: laws like the two Arizona provisions upheld by the Court today—which a lower court said were intentionally passed to harm voters of color—aim to erect new barriers and disenfranchise AAPIs,” Ng added.

Voting rights advocates believe the Arizona case may make it harder to halt the GOP's efforts in 17 other states to make it harder to vote.

In her dissent, Justice  Kagan wrote: “What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten—in order to weaken—a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses.” she was  joined by the court’s other two liberals, Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. 

"The need to pass comprehensive voting rights legislation at the federal level has never been more urgent," said APIAVote''s Chen. "We call on Congress to pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act right now in order to protect and expand democracy, and ensure that those who have historically been excluded from the civic process have their voices heard. There is no more time to wait.”

AAPI leaders mourn passing of Congressman John Lewis

SCREEN CAPTURE / YOUTUBE

Rep. John Lewis, center, wore a lei in a commemorative crossing of the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

By Louis Chan
ASAM NEWS

Asian Americans reacted with both sadness and admiration to the death of Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights icon who made fighting for immigrants one of his priorities.

Lewis served in Congress from 1987 until his death yesterday from cancer at the age of 80. He helped to organize the 1963 March on Washington with five other civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King, James Farmer, A Philip Randolph, Roy Wilkins and Whitney Young. With Lewis’ passing, all of the Big six have now died.

He is also one of the 13 original Freedom Riders, a group of seven Whites and six Blacks, who rode from Washington, DC to New Orleans in 1961 to protest segregation.

In 1965, Lewis lead 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. It would be a day that would become known as Bloody Sunday. Troopers moved in with tear gas as the group stopped and prayed. Lewis’ head would end up bloodied and fractured.

“I thought I saw death,” he said just this past August at the convention of the Asian American Journalists Association while recalling Bloody Sunday. “I thought I was going to die.”

A movement had begun several months ago to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge in honor of Lewis.

Vanita Gupta, an Indian American and president of the  Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said naming the bridge is one way to honor Lewis. She says, however, the bigger fight is to restore the Voting Rights Act.

It was a direct message to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

“Do not utter a word about Cong. Lewis so long as you hold hostage HR4, the bill which passed the House in December that restores the Voting Rights Act,” Gupta tweeted to McConnell.

In a 2015 guest post on AsAmNews, Rep Mark Takano (D-CA), recalled on the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday a little known chapter of the civil rights movement.

“I was delighted to see that Senator Mazie Hirono and Congressman Mark Takai from Hawaii brought a reminder of our commitment to the civil rights movement – lei’s,” wrote Takano. “These lei’s served as an important reminder of our community’s solidarity with the civil rights movement, much like the lei’s that Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis wore during the third march to Montgomery in late March 1965. A little known fact is that the lei’s that were provided that day were actually a gift from Reverend Abraham Akaka, a close friend of Martin Luther King Jr.’s, and the brother of future United States Senator Daniel Akaka.”

During his Q&A at the AAJA convention, Lewis repeated a phrase he said was uttered to him by both Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.

He said both “encouraged me to get into good trouble, necessary trouble. I’ve been getting into trouble ever since.”

“Thank you for showing the world what good trouble looks like,” tweeted Sen. Kamala Harris last night in response to Lewis' death.

“We learned from civil rights giant Congressman John Lewis that we have “a moral obligation, a mission and a mandate, to speak up, speak out and get in good trouble. In honor of his legacy, we will continue on this path of good trouble,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-MI, one of two Muslim American women ever elected in Congress.

In 2013, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund awarded Lewis its Justice in Action Award.

Lewis has never forgotten the Asian American community and other immigrant communities.

In 2013, he took part in a pro-immigration reform rally which ended with the arrest of 200 protesters.

Asian Americans are often forgotten in the struggle for civil rights, but Lewis was not among them.

“John Lewis was a giant. A civil rights legend. A leader in the halls of Congress. And a moral voice for the whole nation.””Having the opportunity to serve with him was one of the great honors of my life,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), one of two Muslim American women serving in Congress.