The six conservative-right wing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, by striking down Section 2, which requires that minorities have districts in which their voting preferences may be heard. This section led to the creation of districts that elected Black representatives.
We can now expect redistricting of Congressional districts and state legislative districts to sharply reduce the number of Black elected officials.
Richard L. Hasen of Slate wrote that the decision “will go down in history as one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last century. All six Republican-appointed justices on the court signed onto Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters, while pretending they were merely making technical tweaks to the act.
This decision will bleach the halls of Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies like city councils, by ending the protections of Section 2 of the act, which had provided a pathway to assure that voters of color would have some rudimentary fair representation. It’s the culmination of the life’s work of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who have shown persistent resistance to the idea of the United States as a multiracial democracy, and a brazen willingness to reject Congress’ judgment that fair representation for minority voters sometimes requires race-conscious legislation. It gives the green light to further partisan gerrymandering. It protects Alito’s core constituency: aggrieved white Republican voters. It’s a disaster for American democracy.
Future generations of legal scholars will review the Republicans’ retreat from civil rights protections enacted in the 1960s. Perhaps psychologists will figure out why Justice Clarence Thomas consistently opposes laws intended to protect people like him.

This isn’t a minor legal tweak, it’s a shift in power. Weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965 risks turning representation into theory instead of reality. When the Supreme Court of the United States narrows protections like Section 2, the impact won’t be loud, but it will be felt in who gets heard and who slowly disappears from the table.
LikeLike
The purpose of Section 2 was to ensure that Blacks could vote for meaningful representation.
This decision will wipe out many Black districts.
LikeLike
A brilliant and persuasive author I know and admire advised that looking for an explanation for aberrant behavior requires following the money. Woody Guthrie sang about the Dough re mi.
The operant question today is why power (money) has decided that racism is important for their wealth.
LikeLike
From outside the left-wing bubble, a moderate liberal makes a more persuasive case regarding this opinion.
https://josephklein.substack.com/p/on-benign-bigotry
LikeLike
The linked essay was full of general statements, but very short on concrete evidence. For example, did this author consider the way laws are written as Md the over-incarceration of African-American males? He seem as to accept apriori that the society is now color blind. Try again, Joe.
LikeLike
#TodaysAcronym ☞ #TUSATUD
🇺🇸 🔃 🏳️
#TheUSATurnedUpsideDown
LikeLike
#TodaysAcronym ☞ #TUSATUD
🇺🇸 🔃 🏳️
#TheUSATurnedUpsideDown
❝I will have plenty to say about the Supreme Court’s decision today in Callais v. Louisiana, but tonight I want to make sure that yesterday’s speeches by President Donald J. Trump and King Charles III of the United Kingdom don’t get lost in the tidal wave of news. They presented a very clear picture of what is at stake in the United States today.
❝King Charles and Queen Camilla are in the U.S. on a state visit, and in his speech welcoming them to the White House yesterday, Trump redefined the United States from a nation based on the principles of the Enlightenment, as it has historically been understood, to one based in the white nationalist ideas of blood and soil.❞
— Heather Cox Richardson
LikeLike