|
||||||||||||
|
Did you see this, John? The New York Times laid out in very stark terms what’s at stake when the Supreme Court rules on the Louisiana v. Callais case: The fair maps movement has been fighting this case since the beginning, challenging an illegal map in Louisiana. That’s because it was clear from the start what was at stake: The ability for communities of color to elect representation of their own choosing. Now, the ability for voters of color to make their voices heard across this country hangs in the balance. And we must be prepared for whatever outcome is handed down.
Despite being a critical safeguard against racist policies like literacy tests and racial gerrymandering, the Voting Rights Act has been systematically weakened in recent years. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required states and localities with a history of racial voter discrimination to obtain “pre-clearance” from the federal government before changing their processes around elections. But in the Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision in 2013, they dismantled this safeguard — effectively removing the pre-clearance requirement and weakening one of the Voting Rights Act’s most important protections. Now, Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to similarly gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prevents states from diluting the voices of communities of color. At issue is Louisiana’s voting map, which was originally drawn with only one Black opportunity district out of the state’s six congressional districts, despite the fact that Louisiana’s population is one-third Black. Black Louisiana voters fought back and got the gerrymandered map thrown out — but now the Supreme Court’s decision could undo that progress, trigger mid-decade redistricting in states across the country, and set back progress on voting rights by generations. — The NDRC Team
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||