By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court is considering a case, *Louisiana v. Callais*, that could significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The state of Louisiana is arguing against the use of race in redistricting, potentially leading to the elimination of Black-majority districts. The Court is examining whether compliance with Section 2 of the VRA violates the 14th or 15th Amendments, indicating a possible intention to dismantle the law. If the Court finds Section 2 unconstitutional, it could jeopardize the existence of numerous Black-majority districts in Southern states. The ruling could potentially dismantle a cornerstone of voting rights protections, which has already been challenged in past Supreme Court decisions.
Read the original article here
The Supreme Court Asks Why It Shouldn’t Gut the Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court’s current consideration of the Voting Rights Act feels less like a legal debate and more like a pre-ordained demolition. It’s difficult to ignore the feeling that the outcome is already decided, especially given past actions. We saw it with *Shelby County v. Holder*, and the echoes of that decision still reverberate. The logic often seems twisted: acknowledging racism as a past issue, then dismantling protections against its resurgence. It’s a bit like dismantling your house’s hurricane shutters because the sun is shining.
The current composition of the Court is a significant issue. It’s not a monolith; it’s important to clearly identify the individuals who are most likely to support gutting the VRA. The focus should be on justices like Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts, while recognizing the potential influence of someone like Barrett, who may or may not want to appear unbiased.
It’s important to remember the fundamental principles. The Gettysburg Address reminds us of the foundational idea that government should be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” That means these people need to be able to vote, and their votes need to be counted, not diluted or erased. A Supreme Court that consistently undermines these core principles damages the very essence of democracy.
There’s a palpable sense of frustration, as though established legal principles and precedents have been disregarded. When the word of the Court is considered gospel, that presents an enormous risk for the country. The feeling that the court has been “compromised” is easy to find among the citizenry.
A key question arises: where are we on the spectrum of societal health? There is a strong sentiment that something is deeply wrong, perhaps even to the point where a response is coming. And the response should be commensurate with the damage.
The call for reform is clear. The core is that the Supreme Court should be re-examined. Lifetime appointments, a relic of a different era, are questioned in light of the potential for long-term damage. The frustration extends to the belief that the Court is not operating in a fair or neutral manner.
The concerns expressed are far from baseless. The idea that the Voting Rights Act should be discarded because it’s no longer needed is clearly belied by the actions of many elected officials. Gerrymandering is blatant, designed to dilute the voices of specific communities and disenfranchise voters.
It’s about more than just the law; it’s about the erosion of trust in government. The Court’s actions appear to undermine the very idea of fair elections. There are questions regarding the role and structure of the Supreme Court.
The conversation also circles back to the issue of big money in politics. Citizens United needs to be addressed. Big money corrupts everything. The sentiment is that those in power are serving corporations, not the people.
The fear that the government doesn’t even believe in democracy is a scary one. It’s a system that feels under threat, where rights are not respected. The responses range from calls for drastic action to the acceptance of the current state. The conversation about court packing and the potential impact of decisions is at a fever pitch.
The Supreme Court’s role has become something of a legislative body. It is changing the laws without the need for approval from the other two branches. They don’t seem to consider precedent or evidence when making their decisions. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is the last stand.
The fear of a country going backwards into more discriminatory practices is real. And the response is not for the faint of heart. To risk everything is the only option.