In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Roberts, parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were struck down. According to the majority, the Voting Rights Act no longer reflects current conditions. Voting tests, says Justice Roberts have been eradicated. Therefore the Voting Rights Act has done its thing and is no longer useful. This is some disingenuous reasoning if I have ever heard any. The world has changed but it has not is more how I see it.
The dissent was written by Justice Ginsberg in support of the law asserting the existence of second generation discrimination. This opinion reasoned there is enough information to substantiate subtle discrimination such as moving a polling place to an area where blacks do not have transportation to thwart their ability to vote. There is case law in Minnesota to disprove Justice Robert’s contention and history tells us that restrictive voting laws did not work. So the evidence of second generation discrimination cited by Justice Ginsberg tells you more about the politics of our Supreme Court today than anything else.
As someone who benefited from this law who has written about voting discrimination on the state level, I am saddened that arguments can be made to explain a non-reality with the fluency permitted by legal language of precedent. You can speak logically on case law. It doesn’t really have to reflect reality. What other reason can be asserted to explain there is no discrimination today except that discrimination has been redefined.
The full opinion is here. In an obtuse way, this has everything to do with reinventing oneself and the future.
Photo credit: Clubcabram
Leave a Reply