The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana voting map case ensures that, as a practical matter, it will now be almost impossible to use race as a factor when drawing voting maps for the U.S. House. (At least when doing so is explicitly designed to remedy historical racial discrimination.)
The key outcome of the ruling is the fact that people of color who sue states for racial discrimination in creating voting maps must now prove that said maps are intentionally racially discriminatory. The impact of the opinion is that states, especially in the South, that created majority Black districts thinking that the law required them to do so to remedy historic race-based voting discrimination cannot only undo the maps; they will interpret the opinion as requiring them to undo them.
The Court said that there must “a strong inference” of racially discriminatory intent. This is interesting given that the Court’s Republican majority has indicated that recent history of racism no longer matters. Thus, by pretending that racism no longer affects people of color on a regular basis, the Court has given license for discrimination to continue apace.
Intentional discrimination is always accompanied by insincere rationalization.
Intentional discrimination is always accompanied by insincere rationalization.
Consider Florida. In anticipation of the Court’s ruling, Governor Ron DeSantis oversaw the redrawing of districts in his state. This will be interesting to watch because Florida law says that voting districts cannot be redrawn for purely partisan reasons, which is exactly the reason that DeSantis used, citing his State’s “changing demographics.”
Thus, at a minimum, Florida violated its own law by redrawing districts for explicitly partisan reasons. Further, as stated earlier, Florida is among the Southern states insisting that they are not engaging in racial discrimination by arguing that the new ruling requires them to undo majority Black districts.
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court keeps pretending that America has reached a point wherein racial discrimination is no longer a major problem — at least for people of color. That is problematic given that 83% of the Republicans on the Court are white. And, yes, I’m fully aware of the risible claim that “there are no Republicans or Democrats on the Supreme Court.” No one believes that, including those who make that spurious argument.
Then there is Mississippi. That state has four congressional districts — three white (75%) and one Black (25%). Yet, Mississippi is nearly 40% Black. Yet, that lone Black seat is now in jeopardy of being eliminated. There is no Marvel Multiverse in which white Americans who constitute 40% of a state’s population would accept not having any white congresspeople.
It is inarguable that race is the real issue here (though people will nonetheless argue that it isn’t). Today, nearly every state in America is majority white. Thus, as my good friend, attorney Chris Worden, points out, whites can “play act at being race-neutral, even when all the evidence tells us exactly the opposite.” (Worden is white.) But the fact is that white Americans are increasingly concerned about becoming a racial minority.
Worden also highlights the fact that conservative whites argue that districts in which Blacks or Hispanics are the majority are “racist,” even though they don’t make the same argument for districts in which the majority is white and votes for white politicians. Yet, how many times in American history has a district sent a Black representative to Congress without at least 23% of that district being Black? In the words of the late James Ingram, “just once”.
The state at the center of the latest Supreme Court debacle — Louisiana — has a very telling history. Specifically, Louisiana has never elected a Black representative from a district where Black people weren’t at least 50% of the population. In short, it’s “racist” for majority Black districts to send Black representatives to Congress, but it’s not “racist” for majority white districts to send white representatives to Congress.
Further, for those who are keeping score at home, SCOTUS has declared the following: It is not constitutional for colleges and universities to use race as a factor in admissions in order to counter historical discrimination. However, it is constitutional for ICE to use race as a factor in targeting people to detain and even arrest.
Likewise, it is not constitutional for state legislatures to use race as a basis for drawing voting districts in order to counter historical racism. However, it is constitutional for the president to use race as a factor in enacting travel bans.
Apropos of nothing, I will point out that George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” is currently in theaters…
America has always sought to dilute Black political power by either “packing” or “cracking” in its map drawing. Packing refers to stuffing as many Black voters as possible in as few districts as possible. By way of example, instead of having two districts that were competitive at 35% Black, they limit influence to one seat by making the district 70% Black.
Cracking refers to breaking up areas with concentrated voters so that no district is competitive. For example, an urban center that was heavily Black would be chopped up and added into five other districts, so the prospect of Black representation withered to nothingness.
Not coincidentally, this is what Indiana’s new congressional map would have done to 28-29% of Black Indianapolis had Republicans’ redistricting plan succeeded, wiping out the state’s only Black congressperson.
Either way, the result is less Black political power. These two practices were among the issues that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was designed to address.
Back in 2021, I wrote the following in a column:
“Before he was elevated to the Supreme Court, current Chief Justice John Roberts had to sit through Senate confirmation hearings. The late Senator Ted Kennedy, a civil rights giant, asked Roberts about his views regarding the Voting Rights Act. Kennedy did so because Roberts was well known in political circles for being hostile to the Act ever since he joined the Reagan Administration as a young attorney. In responding to Kennedy, Roberts said, ‘(The right to vote) is preservative of… all other rights. Without access to the ballot box, people are not in the position to protect any other rights that are important to them.’”
(Roberts managed not to giggle as he uttered those words.)
For their part, apologists for the Supreme Court’s ruling argue that it doesn’t restrict African Americans’ right to vote. This is stultifyingly obtuse. Why? The issue today is not the spectacle of law enforcement officers physically blocking Black people from voting. Rather, having gained the right to vote, the issue now is dilution of Black voting power.
There is little practical difference between being deprived of a vote that should be counted versus the sham of having a vote that doesn’t count.
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
