Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

[Dānu]

Whatever sense this all might have made for black voters half a century ago, those voters are today so integrated into the mainstream of the Democratic Party — and, at the margins, more open to Republicans as well — that they ought to be treated the same as every other American. Certainly, black voters are nowhere ignored in statewide or national elections. Breaking down the race-specific walls around legislative districts is apt, in the long run, to produce a healthier politics.

That day is now here.

For too long, without a clear mandate in the language enacted by Congress, the Supreme Court has left states between a legal Scylla and Charybdis, simultaneously expected to draw race-conscious districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and to draw those districts without considering race to avoid violating the Constitution. Like any charade that requires politicians to pretend not to be doing what they are compelled to do, this was unsustainable.

Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion for a 6–3 Court along the now-customary ideological lines in Louisiana v. Callais went back to first principles: “The Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.” The Court’s redistricting precedents have led legislatures and lower courts to forget that “allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.” While “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act . . . was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it,” instead, “lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”

No more. Quoting a past opinion, the Court emphasized that “distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” It chided prior decisions for failing to adhere faithfully either to that general constitutional principle or to the language of the Voting Rights Act.

A Righteous Blow Against Racial Gerrymandering

How do you feel about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Voting Rights Act?

---

I, like many, was initially dismayed by the potential consequences of this decision for minority representation in government, but as I thought about it more, I came to the conclusion that, while the consequenes are catastrophic, it is a good decision. My reasoning is thus. When we look to some of the states in the northeast, though some have a healthy minority of 40% Republicans, because of the distribution of those Republicans in the state, there are no or almost no Republican districts. In some of those states, the distribution of Republicans in those states is so even, that no matter what section of the state you cordon off, the Republicans will not form a majority of the electorate in that section of the state. Unlike racial minorities in states like Lousiana where the minority's distribution is in clumps such that they can be isolated into a minority-majority district, in these northeastern states they do not form such clumps.

Now, while many have focused on the fact that partisan gerrymandering is still permitted, and partisan gerrymandering often correlates with racial gerrymandering. I think the suggestion is that partisan gerrymandering is implicitly racist because of the strong intertwining between race and politics. There is a kernel of truth to this argument, but one is still left with the inconvenient fact that partisan gerrymanders are not necessarily examples of intentional racial discrimination. Given that the Voting Rights Act is a legislative remedy, rather than a criminal or civil penalty, this can be allowed under certain conditions, presumably. However, a few things stand in the way. The first is that it is repulsive to our system of justice to hold people responsible for the unintended consequences of their actions. This is what I think the court got right. Despite the difficulty in separating partisan discrimination from racial discrimination, if we fail to make the attempt, then we are not doing honor to the best ideals of our justice system. This creates the danger in that, because the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate guilt, some racial gerrymanders will slip through under the guise of partisan gerrymanders. But this is consistent with erring on the side of letting the guilty go free in order to avoid conviction of the inocent. The second is that our constitution does guarantee that people not be discriminated against, whether against their interests, or in favor of the interests. Whether the Constitution forbids the intentional remedy of systematic inequities is a larger issue that I will not address here. The third issue is that while differences between racial minorities and the majority exist, the overriding polarization in our society is along lines of politics rather than lines related to race or sexual orientation or rural-urban characteristics.

So am I happy with the decision? No, not really, but as I said, I think it is the right decision, with some reservations. To my mind, it is a step toward fairness but it is only the first step. The problem stems ultimately from allowing any form of identity, political or racial, to be manipulated toward the benefit of that group, regardless of whether that identity is based upon elective or non-elective characteristics. The solution is not to return to racial gerrymandering but rather to outlaw gerrymandering altogether. Government representation should be determined based upon geography, local geographic and economic factors, and other non-personal characteristics. Presumably by commissions that are nonpartisan, but however it's done, the impact of politics on districting needs to be removed as well as it does not result in treating people equally under the law but preferentially depending upon which party they choose to align with.

If that were ever to come to pass, and I feel a new court or even a constitutional amendment might be required, I think that would usher in a conversation that has long simmered in the background. As critical race theory suggests, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, race consciousness and ultimately discrimination on the basis of race or other immutable characteristics is "bake in" our institutions and government. We will be given a chance to squarely face the question which runs through all of this, which is, how do we recompence groups that were unfairly treated in the past, and as a result of having been discrimnated against, face tangible inequities which intentionally or not deny them equal participation in our society. If we are truly to move forward on civil rights, we will need to move past transitional legislative fixes and onto the confrontation of the way that race and racism have shaped our society and continue to do so in the present.

---

What are your thoughts?

[Deesse23]

Whoever approves gerrymandering, particularly in a "winner takes it all" election system, either
#1 Does not understand democracy
or
#2 Is against democracy
period

Thats why proportional elections are better/more fair. Thats why the US is so backwards, and FAR from being a great, good, or whatever you wanna call it, democracy. At the moment its barely a functional one.

[Dānu]

Whoever approves gerrymandering, particularly in a "winner takes it all" election system, either
#1 Does not understand democracy
or
#2 Is against democracy
period

Thats why proportional elections are better/more fair. Thats why the US is so backwards, and FAR from being a great, good, or whatever you wanna call it, democracy. At the moment its barely a functional one.

How would you suggest lines should be drawn in our system? Do you have another solution to our dilemma?

[epronovost]

Whoever approves gerrymandering, particularly in a "winner takes it all" election system, either
#1 Does not understand democracy
or
#2 Is against democracy
period

Thats why proportional elections are better/more fair. Thats why the US is so backwards, and FAR from being a great, good, or whatever you wanna call it, democracy. At the moment its barely a functional one.

How would you suggest lines should be drawn in our system?  Do you have another solution to our dilemma?

I think the easiest and simplest solution would be to put the power to draw electoral district lines in the hands of a non-partisan governmental agency akin to those found in most democracies outside of the US and to draw those lines in a way that would roughly reflect the overall popular vote in any State or region (so if 40% of people vote Republican then around 40% of the seats and the assembly should be held by Republicans unless their support are hyper concentrated in some very specific location). Ironically, drawing competitive district with a plethora of criteria to represent well the general population in a non-partisan manner is something AI is actually very good at so you could even use AI to produce a draft that is then overviewed and modified by people. I would not trust the extraordinarily partisan US political system to produce good maps and I would certainly not trust a society plagued by so much racial animus to produce maps that would serve and represent fairly ethnic minority groups.

[Deesse23]

Whoever approves gerrymandering, particularly in a "winner takes it all" election system, either
#1 Does not understand democracy
or
#2 Is against democracy
period

Thats why proportional elections are better/more fair. Thats why the US is so backwards, and FAR from being a great, good, or whatever you wanna call it, democracy. At the moment its barely a functional one.

How would you suggest lines should be drawn in our system?  Do you have another solution to our dilemma?

I would start with abandoning laws that just allow a faction in rule to easily draw new borders, so they can STAY in rule. I would start with requiring a 2/3 majority to re-draw borders. I would introduce more fair, proportional elections, or as in Germany for example, a mix of proportional and winner takes it all. There are so man yways to tackle/fix this, the point is not "is there any way?" but "where to fucking start?", isnt it?

It really is not rocket science.  

Edit: what Epronovost said. See, there are SO many options.

[Minimalist]

 Thats why the US is so backwards

We are backwards because we are clinging to a process that was created in 1787 for a small, under-populated, agrarian, nation that still tolerated slavery.

[SYZ]

Here in Australia, electoral boundaries are drawn by independent
electoral commissions, for both federal or state electorates.

Federal (Commonwealth) electorates: handled by the Australian
Electoral Commission (AEC). They conduct redistributions to redraw
boundaries for seats in the House of Representatives (similar to US's
lower house).  

At the federal level, there’s no United States equivalent to Australia’s
non-political Australian Electoral Commission.     Additionally, each
Australian state has its own independent electoral authority
responsible for drawing boundaries.

I note that in 1982, Congress revised Section 2 to specify that a violation
occurs if a practice results in a denial of the right to vote, regardless of
whether the discrimination was intentional.

   Excerpted from the Guardian Australia, 30 April:

Acting as an unspoken double act—the court’s Chief Justice John Roberts
and Samuel Alito—have chipped away at what has been called the crown
jewel of the civil rights movement. Wednesday’s ruling in Louisiana v Callais
is the fifth major supreme court decision authored by the two justices that
have slowly but surely strangled efforts to protect the democratic rights of
Black and other minority Americans.

The attack on section 2 of the Voting Rights Actn this latest ruling eviscerates
a critical tool that had been used for 40 years to prevent the political
power of minority voters being diluted by largely Republican southern
states in the drafting of electoral maps. The ruling finds that attempts to create
a second electoral district in Louisiana that would give African American voters
the chance to choose their own representatives proportionate to the state’s
population, which is about one-third Black, was a form of “unconstitutional
racial gerrymandering”.

[SYZ]

 Thats why the US is so backwards

We are backwards because we are clinging to a process that was created in 1787 for a small, under-populated, agrarian, nation that still tolerated slavery.

Including the antiquated Electoral College and the 2nd Amendment.

[GenesisNemesis]

Other, the Supreme Court should be abolished, along with the Electoral College.

[GenesisNemesis]

Whoever approves gerrymandering, particularly in a "winner takes it all" election system, either
#1 Does not understand democracy
or
#2 Is against democracy
period

Thats why proportional elections are better/more fair. Thats why the US is so backwards, and FAR from being a great, good, or whatever you wanna call it, democracy. At the moment its barely a functional one.

How would you suggest lines should be drawn in our system?  Do you have another solution to our dilemma?

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but we've seen how easily the court can be misused. I don't think it's a bigger dilemma than having a corrupt Supreme Court, which has already decided the president has far more power than they actually are supposed to have. Of course Biden could've prevented this mess by appointing more judges who actually cared about democracy, but alas, he was useless. It also irks me that they get to decide what they do is legal, which is far beyond the power the average person has. I don't trust anyone with that power.

[Deesse23]

Before i continue let me repeat what i said in the "(How) can a supreme court enforce its decisions, when/if executive and legislation just ignore its decisions": You cant enforce democracy by law. Its  a precondition that not more than one branch has become corrupt and power hungry. In a case like the US where the majority of congress, SCOTUS and POTUS have conspired to undermine democracy, there isnt much you can do, but to vote (as long as that matters) or take matters in your own hands (see assassin thread).

Germany: We have a system similar to AUS. The president (who has the role of a King in a constitutional monarchy, like Charles III), being impartial and "above" daily political struggles, set up a commission to draw new district borders. The parliament then has to formally agree (which it always did, matter of not being corrupt, ya know). Drawing new borders is also very tightly regulated by law, so gerrymandering like in the US is nearly impossible in Germany.

Here in Australia, electoral boundaries are drawn by independent
electoral commissions, for both federal or state electorates.

Federal (Commonwealth) electorates: handled by the Australian
Electoral Commission (AEC). They conduct redistributions to redraw
boundaries for seats in the House of Representatives (similar to US's
lower house).  

[Szuchow]

Other, the Supreme Court should be abolished, along with the Electoral College.

Supreme Court ( or equivalent organ) is essential to functioning democracy. If not for judiciary who will decide that law is unconstitutional? Should legislative and executive be allowed to run freely? 

Issue with US Supreme Court is that it become rubberstamp to fascist regime not that it exists.

[GenesisNemesis]

Other, the Supreme Court should be abolished, along with the Electoral College.

Supreme Court ( or equivalent organ) is essential to functioning democracy. 

Hard to see that when ours has clearly gone to the shitter.

[Szuchow]

Supreme Court ( or equivalent organ) is essential to functioning democracy. 

Hard to see that when ours has clearly gone to the shitter.

I would say that it makes it easier to see why well functioning SC is needed.

[Deesse23]

Supreme Court ( or equivalent organ) is essential to functioning democracy. 

Hard to see that when ours has clearly gone to the shitter.

What Comrade Cat said:

You cant enforce democracy, you cant make a political system, based on separation of power, "fool proof". If several actors and branches have decided that power and party trumps (no pun intended) constitution, then the individual people are the problem, not the system. They should have been stopped earlier in their tracks. If anything, complacency of too many voters and confidence that the US system IS fool proof was the root cause. Hybris comes before the fall.

[GenesisNemesis]

Ok, reform I suppose instead of just abolishing. Even though I still hate the concept of a small number of people getting to decide for themselves what they do is legal or not.

[Deesse23]

Ok, reform I suppose instead of just abolishing. Even though I still hate the concept of a small number of  people getting to decide for themselves what they do is legal or not.

Our SCOTGER judges are elected for 12y only, re-election is NOT a thing, and they HAVE to retire at 68. Not foolproof, but a good start for a reform in the US i say.  

[GenesisNemesis]

Ok, reform I suppose instead of just abolishing. Even though I still hate the concept of a small number of  people getting to decide for themselves what they do is legal or not.

Our SCOTGER judges are elected for 12y only, re-election is NOT a thing, and they HAVE to retire at 68. Not foolproof, but a good start for a reform in the US i say.  

Glares with jealousy

[Minimalist]

Again, in 1787 "life-time appointments" did not generally last as long as they do today.  While some of the Founding Fathers did make it into their 90's quite a few died in their 40's and 50's.  Life was precarious in the 18th century.

One must avoid giving the Founders too much credit for the system they designed.

[Deesse23]

Our SCOTGER judges are elected for 12y only, re-election is NOT a thing, and they HAVE to retire at 68. Not foolproof, but a good start for a reform in the US i say.  

Glares with jealousy

https://www.newsweek.com/thomas-alito-ro...w-11910716

A Maryland Democrat proposed a long-shot bill to impose term limits on Supreme Court judges in the latest reform effort to capitalize on the high court’s historic unpopularity across the political spectrum.

The proposal for 18-year term limits from Representative Johnny Ozlewski requires a constitutional amendment and has virtually no chance of becoming law and forcing Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts—all of whom have served more than two decades—into retirements.

[Minimalist]

I'll admit to two conflicting emotions over this decision.

First, rage that the court deliberately threw minority voters to the wolves to keep the MAGA base happy - even though there are many other issues which are pissing them off in droves.

But, second, is math.  Cramming minority voters into single districts to make sure that they could have a minority face in congress ignores the simple fact that you cannot turn a minority into a majority.  By creating a handful of Minority Assured districts the net effect was to remove those voters from having any impact on the 'non-designated but purely white' districts....or purely enough so that the successful candidates in those districts could safely ignore any minorities who might accidently have spilled over the border.  So instead of having districts where the office holders had to at least tone down their racism we ended up with them storing their sheets and hoods in the closet and bringing them out whenever they felt like it.  That's no way to get progressive legislation through.

I don't think the 2026 midterms will be impacted.  RepubliKKKunts just lost a state senate race in Texas by 14 points in a district that Fuckface carried by 17 just 2 years ago.  The Democrats and Independents came out in droves and the magatards were 'disinterested' as one republiKKKunt pundit put it.  As the economy sinks further into the shitter they have a lot to be disinterested about.  We'll see what happens in 2028.

[pattylt]

If people were pissed about the price of eggs two years ago, I can’t wait to see how they feel about gas prices. One can avoid eggs for a while but gas for the car is a whole nother story.

[Minimalist]

And the war...and the ballroom...and the deportations...and the gerrymandering....and EPSTEIN.

[Minimalist]

Good to have you back, Patty.

[SYZ]

The United States has a terrible record for discrimination. The
most extensively documented disparities occur in that country.
Black and Hispanic people are disproportionately stopped, arrested,
and affected by use-of-force incidents. This is one of the clearest
and most studied cases across wealthy first-world countries.

In the United Kingdom stop-and-search powers disproportionately
target black people; disparities are high relative to population size.

And here in Australia, our indigenous (black) population is vastly
overrepresented in arrests and incarceration rates.  And our indigenes
were only granted the right to vote as recently as 1967 after a public
plebiscite.

In France research shows French police are using overly broad powers
to conduct unwarranted and abusive identity checks on black and Arab
young men and boys.