Supreme Court Considers Which Voters Are 'Too Many' For Democracy
The Hill's report on the Supreme Court hearing arguments about racial gerrymandering in Louisiana focuses on the legal intricacies, presenting it as a balancing act between the Voting Rights Act and equal protection. What's omitted from this pristine legal theater is the historical context: the entire bloody saga of systemic minority vote suppression, from Jim Crow laws to modern ID requirements.
This isn't about mere 'map adjustments'; it's the latest iteration of states meticulously crafting districts to dilute the electoral power of Black communities, specifically to ensure that political power remains disproportionately white. The fight for fair maps isn't a theoretical exercise; it’s a fight for representation that has been actively denied for centuries. We’re told this is
complicated. Is it? Or is the complication simply a thinly veiled excuse to avoid confronting foundational inequities? One might wonder how many times the highest court needs to re-litigate the plain text of the 15th Amendment before some states get the message: citizens, regardless of race, get to vote—and their votes should count equally. The argument isn't about 'too much race' in
redistricting; it's about denying fair representation to Black voters, a tactic as old as the republic itself, merely rephrased for a new century. It appears the only thing being 'balanced' is power against the people's right to choose their representatives.