Looks like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is all but done with. I'm torn. I don't like the thinking behind guaranteed minority districts, but understand the reasoning. What can't be disputed is the result of these rulings will be further one party dominance -- of either stripe -- resulting in minority voices (be they racial or partisan) being ignored.
Bloomington and Monroe Country are single party areas. The only voices heard are the Dems, and there are few contested races. No Republican has a shot. Makes it hard to challenge the entrenched power structure.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Not the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I would think the people opposing "legislating from the bench" would be upset. But they aren't being as vocal as I would expect. I am pretty neutral on it
You can’t use discrimination to end racism. Justice Robert’s succinctly pointed this out in 2009, before Obama convinced half of the country that the other half was racist…
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
I would think the people opposing "legislating from the bench" would be upset. But they aren't being as vocal as I would expect. I am pretty neutral on it
Sooner or later methinks they’ll be vocal aplenty. The middle class and below far outnumber the upper. Complete and thorough redistricting nationwide will put the House permanently in the hands of the liberal party of the time.
I would think the people opposing "legislating from the bench" would be upset. But they aren't being as vocal as I would expect. I am pretty neutral on it
Sooner or later methinks they’ll be vocal aplenty. The middle class and below far outnumber the upper. Complete and thorough redistricting nationwide will put the House permanently in the hands of the liberal party of the time.
Really?
https://twitter.com/realjeremycarl/status/2049522485784400346?s=61&t=1KiTJ7EYgX-uQgf4Wkb9sg
The Voting Rights Act was never intended to require racially specific (black) congressional districts. It only prohibits discrimination in creating districts. We have progressed to the point where discrimination is no longer an issue. If discrimination again comes up, the Voting Rights Act will provide a remedy.
The three dissenters, most Democrats, and Obama are lying when they say the VRA is weakened.
Is Warnock dishonest or simply ignorant? This quote is awful. The message he gives is a large reason why we cannot ever solve the racial issues plaguing us. This decision has zero to do with civil rights struggles of 60 years ago. Note to Warnock: we are making progress, celebrate that instead of always dragging us back to ancient history.
- Warnock said, “It is an awful decision. And, today is a devastating day in the history of our fight for a democracy that looks like America. The decision of, this Supreme Court, is deeply disappointing. But we will not lose hope. We will continue to fight. But let me be really clear, as the pastor of the church that Martin Luther King Jr. led the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the crowning achievement of the Civil Rights movement, and it is an achievement that is consecrated in the blood, quite literally, the blood of martyrs. Those who stood up like my own parishioner, John Lewis, who took a beating, and was assaulted on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Amelia Boynton, who was gassed, so many others who lost their lives fighting for this. And we should be really clear that this extreme Supreme Court sided with the opponents of that movement today. And I think we’re going to see as a result of that, at least the peril that we will we will see a Congress that looks less and less like America.”
The supreme court court did no such things. Warnock is the problem, not the solution.
From the explanations I heard on NPR this morning, based on this ruling, discriminatory outcomes for voters from any policy changes are now fully acceptable and legal-- the policy changes are not open to review merely based on the outcome, even severe outcomes such as voter disenfranchisement.
What remains illegal are policy changes implemented with provable willful intent to create discriminatory outcomes.
Since it is generally very difficult to prove willful intent, voting rights protections are in effect gutted by this ruling.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
Provable intent to discriminate is the appropriate standard. Disparate impact is not the standard and is a standard courts are woefully incapable of applying. There are scores of reasons for that besides intentional discrimination.
Intent to discriminate can be proven with circumstantial evidence.
I think it's probably the correct decision. The trouble will be on the margins.
Like, I get that they don't want to see a weird looking gerrymander just to create a majority-minority district. That makes sense to me.
The next cases will be ones that make their way to the Supreme Court based on the crack up of a district sized cluster of minority votes into multiple districts to water down voting power. That's where the rubber will meet the road. I'm afraid that they'll leave enough wiggle room that allows it.
Another opportune time to shill for proportional representation! #GoodGovernment
Should immutable characteristics or demographics ever be used to form district boundaries? Should we have a district consisting of just senior citizens?
Maybe? Yes? Let's say there is a state with 3M people and that a district is 1M people. There are 1M black people concentrated in a city and 2M white people spread around the rest of the state. Cracking the 1M so that there are 3 districts that are 1/3 black and 2/3 white with the intent of diluting the elective power of black voters seems wrong. Maybe there's a reliance on race as a proxy for party ID, which may change how folks feel about it. Like, maybe it doesn't offend our sensibilities if we say we're cracking up 1M democrat votes vs. 1M black votes. So, maybe it's an intent thing. But that's also problematic because then the people drawing the lines know to use code words to make it okay even if they have a purely racist intent.
But, the SCOTUS's point, I think, was that drawing a gerrymander to create an artificial majority-minority district also seems wrong. So I'm not reflexively against the decision.
Stuff is complicated.
And as you know, old people aren't a constitutionally protected class of persons, so the hypothetical is comparing apples and horse apples.