In the Supreme Court today, and as we are all aware by now, Justice Scalia described parts of the Voting Rights Act as a "racial entitlement".
On any number of levels this is wrong.
Voting is an inalienable right, as he must be aware, sitting as he does on the Supreme Court of the United States. I'm not sure why he even made the remark in the first place, because it is entirely irrelevant to the argument.
Here is the argument:
If you, as a City, County, State or any other voting district have no plans to attempt to disadvantage black people, then why do you even care what the Voting Rights Act says?
If your policies and procedures are based on equal access to the polls, then the Voting Rights Act is completely irrelevant to your jurisdiction, and I can think of only one reason why you might challenge it; and that reason does not reflect well, indeed it is why we have the Voting Rights Act.
One does not reach a position where we declare the country free from racism, then hurriedly repeal all of the civil rights legislation. Why would we even think it necessary to do that?
One would not repeal the Drink Driving Laws because everyone had quit drinking and driving.
There are many thousands of laws on the books that are no longer needed. Their time is done, the problems have gone away or they have been supplanted by other, better laws.
But in an atmosphere where access to the polls has been attacked root and branch across the country, even if Justice Scalia felt that this law was no longer needed, what is the imperative to strike it down now?
And why was the case brought in the first place?