This supreme court reviewing the voting rights act of first enacted in 1967 could have a huge implications for elections after the 2010 census. For those who haven't heard the Supreme Court to Rule on Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court said today it will decide whether Congress went too far in extending the life of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights legislation now being challenged as antiquated in an America that elected an African-American president.
The court will decide the constitutionality of the central provision of the act, which seeks to protect minority voting rights by requiring a broad subset of the nation's states and jurisdictions to receive federal approval before making any changes to its voting procedures.
The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, at a time when literacy tests and other schemes were routinely used, especially in parts of the deep South, to intimidate and exclude black voters. It has been expanded to include other minorities and its duration extended four times, mostly recently in 2006 by overwhelming congressional majorities.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the contested "pre-clearance" requirement that affects nine states -- including Virginia -- and parts of seven others.
Now I fully expect that the more conservative supreme court will restrict much of the legal remedies that this law requires. I fully expect that Clarence Thomas will continue to strike out at black people for making fun of him when he was a small ugly child hurting his feelings to attack all legal remedies to redress past discrimination. I could see the Roberts court being much more aggressive in challenging minority majority districts. Now at first glance many people will look a this as a bad thing. But it could have some really interesting effects.
The case concerns the requirements in Section 5 of the law that certain state and local governments, mostly in the South, must obtain permission, or "preclearance," from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any changes affecting voting. The requirement applies to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and scores of counties and townships in other states that Congress found had a history of discrimination at the polls.
Way way back, a long time ago in internet time (March 14th 2006) I wrote a dairy called UNHOLY Allies, Blacks & Latino's dems with Conservatives Hurting ALL DEMS. (yes I used way too many caps back then) The point of the diary was this fact:
There have been numerous diaries written about GOP Gerrymandering and how hard it is for Democrats to win back the US House because of it. This is true even in a very Pro-Blue year. But NO ONE WANTS TO POINT THEIR FINGER AT WHAT ENABLES THE GERRYMANDERING. Well I am going to do it, yes maybe because I am Black and from a Immigrant Family, or maybe I am just one of the few unafraid to do so. (Sorry I know that sounds a little martyrdomish)
White Conservatives has teamed up with opportunistic Minority Polls to construct Majority-Minority districts through out the Sunbelt and Mid-West. These Districts have elected a few more Minorities. But they have effectively elected MANY more Conservatives in the remaining White ones. These Conservatives then vote against these groups self interest.
My point is that the policy of packing during the redistricting process hurts democrats especially in the south. The goal of packing, is to concentrate as many voters of one type (in this case race) into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts. By packing opposition voters into districts they will already win (increasing excess votes for winners) and by cracking the remainder among districts where they are moved into the minority (increasing votes for eventual losers), the number of wasted votes among the opposition can be maximized. This strategy has mean that the GOP has won a majority of white southern and several Midwest US House districts by margins of around 60% Republican vs. 40% Democrat, while leaving leaving democrats with a bunch of black districts where democrats win at an 80%+ rate (or in the case of Texas a bunch of 66%+ Latino ones).
This gerrymandering reaches down to the state house level. It is at it's worse in my opinion in the Floridian legislature. In a state with a close to 50/50 breakdown of Democrats to Republicans, that has also been close to 50 at the federal level in elections, the state legislative bodies are normally 60-70% Republican.
FLORIDA LEGISLATURES - SENATE DISTRICTS
FLORIDA LEGISLATURES - HOUSE DISTRICTS
When Congress in 2006 extended the law for another 25 years, it found that "vestiges of discrimination in voting continue to exist."
The Senate passed the reauthorization unanimously and the House with only 33 dissenting votes. President Bush signed the legislation, saying, "A generation of Americans that has grown up in the last few decades may not appreciate what this act has meant."
A special district court panel of three judges upheld the 2006 authorization, saying the "extensive legislative record documenting contemporary racial discrimination in voting in covered jurisdictions" justified Congress's imposition on state sovereignty.
The issue will go before a court that has become increasingly wary of race-based remedies. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been among the most skeptical, writing in a 2006 legislative redistricting case that "It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."
I am not into pollyanna thinking that race no longer matters in politics because of the election of Barack Obama. But I also am not a doom sayer if Justice Roberts restricts this law. I do believe that WE need some amount of minority-majority districts. There are some issues that won't be dealt with in coalition districts, because they will never be brought up by politicians afraid of offending some part of their coalition. Only members elected from "packed" districts will touch them. But I also believe that packing hurts the larger progressive cause. A better distribution of African-American voters just in the South would net democrats another 4-6 seats by estimation. (on a side note many of these might elect Blue Dog democrats so maybe "hurting" progressive cause might be a stretch but..) But I don't believe every minority in the south should be packed into a minority-majority district with US Rep. Sanford Bishop being the only exception.
Never the less I think this case could have profound implications on American politics. If the court prevents all case of packing but also out laws deliberate dilution of minority populations, Texas and Florida would most likely have democrats in control of both their state legislatures and congressional districts in the next decade (conservatives should be careful about what they wish for). I know this diary puts me on the "outer" edge of the black blogosphere, maybe being so close to Gov. Duval Patrick has clouded my thinking. But I do think many of the protest over the weakening of this bill will be misplaced.
I full expect this law to be weakened. I think looking at the make up of the supreme court I would be surprised if it's not a split 5-4 weakening parts, with a split 5-4 upholding others (with justice Kennedy stroking his ego by playing King Solomon). But with Obama in control of the justice department in 2010 I doubt any really outrageous minority diluting plans wouldn't be sued or stopped even with a weakened law. Maybe later in the decade after 2010 I would be worried. But I'm not ready to start "protesting in the streets over this".