“It could be that the combination of Callais and supercharged partisan gerrymandering is legally correct.”
How is this the case? What is “legally correct” is not some innate physical attribute of the universe that can be divined through via an exceptionally powerful legal microscope; it is determined by the Court, which is itself largely driven by normative considerations. One of those considerations, of course, is the need to apply a somewhat consistent form of legal reasoning—but as evinced by Vieth, a coherent constitutional argument against partisan redistricting was always available to the Court.
To suggest that it is “legally correct” for the Court to embrace political practices that lead to the further decay and corruption of our already struggling experiment in democratic governance just seems beyond naive.
I actually think this piece is a good companion to the pod and is helpful to more fully understand your views.
I'm still greatly worried about the lack of a historical analysis and/or some statutory originalism. If nothing else it seems that the VRA was written in response to reconstruction and Jim Crow that culminated in civil unrest in the '60s. It seems (nearly) everyone at the time understood part of the purpose of the VRA was to bring southern black Americans (back) into the political process. It was disheartening, to say the least, to see Alito misuse and arguably lie with the voting statistics he quoted and then *within days* see the southern states, that the VRA was meant to constrain, jump in to carve up black neighborhoods in redistricting. There are people who were alive in the Jim Crow south who are now having their districts carved up based on race again.
After the enactment of the 15th Amendment, I’m guessing about 99% of black men voted for the Republican Party (because the other party was overtly racist and wanted to subjugate black people). Under the logic of Bolden, Alexander, and Callais, Southern Democrats would have been free to gerrymander those black voters out of the political process simply by claiming they were doing so for partisan (not racist) reasons.
That is so obviously incorrect that writing 3,000 words to try to tease this out seems like a waste of time.
When Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama read a judicial opinion and all immediately rush to carve up black neighborhoods and eliminate black representation in the South—I think it’s safe to say that was a bad judicial opinion.
Let’s not overthink this one. This shit is fucking gross and racist.
It seems to me that your article missed THE key part of the VRA: "nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population." When the talk is about race/color, which it is in Section 2, and the text quoted is being honored, it seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to ask "what are the stated grievances and goals of the plaintiff(s)?" From everything I've read and heard from "news" sources, the plaintiffs have all been arguing color/race representation is the thing that is potentially falling. It sure looks like everyone - both parties - turns a blind eye to the Constitution (currently race-neutral, as it should be) as well as statutory law because they don't like the results when equality of opportunity is there (individuals vote, not groups, and we have one person, one vote equal opportunity) but it is outcomes that are the issue.
Thanks for writing more explanation on your view. The weird hanging threads in the opinion were covered reasonably well in the pod, but this is helpful.
Is it your view that the part of the text reading "That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population...” means that no notice can be taken of disproportion? Why would that be right vs a narrow reading - after all, "equal" is actually a very strong condition.
“It could be that the combination of Callais and supercharged partisan gerrymandering is legally correct.”
How is this the case? What is “legally correct” is not some innate physical attribute of the universe that can be divined through via an exceptionally powerful legal microscope; it is determined by the Court, which is itself largely driven by normative considerations. One of those considerations, of course, is the need to apply a somewhat consistent form of legal reasoning—but as evinced by Vieth, a coherent constitutional argument against partisan redistricting was always available to the Court.
To suggest that it is “legally correct” for the Court to embrace political practices that lead to the further decay and corruption of our already struggling experiment in democratic governance just seems beyond naive.
I actually think this piece is a good companion to the pod and is helpful to more fully understand your views.
I'm still greatly worried about the lack of a historical analysis and/or some statutory originalism. If nothing else it seems that the VRA was written in response to reconstruction and Jim Crow that culminated in civil unrest in the '60s. It seems (nearly) everyone at the time understood part of the purpose of the VRA was to bring southern black Americans (back) into the political process. It was disheartening, to say the least, to see Alito misuse and arguably lie with the voting statistics he quoted and then *within days* see the southern states, that the VRA was meant to constrain, jump in to carve up black neighborhoods in redistricting. There are people who were alive in the Jim Crow south who are now having their districts carved up based on race again.
After the enactment of the 15th Amendment, I’m guessing about 99% of black men voted for the Republican Party (because the other party was overtly racist and wanted to subjugate black people). Under the logic of Bolden, Alexander, and Callais, Southern Democrats would have been free to gerrymander those black voters out of the political process simply by claiming they were doing so for partisan (not racist) reasons.
That is so obviously incorrect that writing 3,000 words to try to tease this out seems like a waste of time.
When Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama read a judicial opinion and all immediately rush to carve up black neighborhoods and eliminate black representation in the South—I think it’s safe to say that was a bad judicial opinion.
Let’s not overthink this one. This shit is fucking gross and racist.
Would you have voted with the majority or the dissent?
It seems to me that your article missed THE key part of the VRA: "nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population." When the talk is about race/color, which it is in Section 2, and the text quoted is being honored, it seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to ask "what are the stated grievances and goals of the plaintiff(s)?" From everything I've read and heard from "news" sources, the plaintiffs have all been arguing color/race representation is the thing that is potentially falling. It sure looks like everyone - both parties - turns a blind eye to the Constitution (currently race-neutral, as it should be) as well as statutory law because they don't like the results when equality of opportunity is there (individuals vote, not groups, and we have one person, one vote equal opportunity) but it is outcomes that are the issue.
Thanks for writing more explanation on your view. The weird hanging threads in the opinion were covered reasonably well in the pod, but this is helpful.
Is it your view that the part of the text reading "That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population...” means that no notice can be taken of disproportion? Why would that be right vs a narrow reading - after all, "equal" is actually a very strong condition.