Okay, let me say that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, renewed in 2008, was a good idea. However, it did have one fatal flaw to it: it applied to only nine states, and parts of five other states. This is what the Roberts Supremes decided was a no-go.
Now I don't know the whole story of how the act came about, particularly why 36 of the 50 states were excluded from coverage. But, since that was done, that effectively left minorities to the tender mercies of whatever majority group happened to be in those remaining 36 states.
Funny thing: some townships in New Hampshire, and some counties in New York and California managed to be included. Most states had no Federal scrutiny of their voting processes. There is, I'm sure a story.
So, if Congress is up to it, they should re-write the Voting Rights Act and have it apply universally across the board: all fifty states.
Or will some hypocrisies be unmasked in the process?
Sometimes Federal involvement is necessary; but for God's sake be even-handed about it.
Get to work, pass a universally applicable Voting Rights Act, and stop crying crocodile tears like Time, the WaPo, and Atlantic!
Times and places do change; and not always for the better. Some states that were okay in 1965 might not be so okay today.
ReplyDeleteThe expression "gerrymandering" comes from Elbridge Gerry, a former Massachuetts governor who drew up some districts to favor his political party. And one wonders about Chicago politics.
You make a good argument for protection of minorities; especially since the Hispanics may be more likely to have voter discrimination problems in some areas.
Politicians and hypocrisies?! Say it ain't so!
ReplyDeleteI think that when the VRA Act was passed they limited its scope so as to make it more acceptable to more of Congress and ensure passage.
ReplyDelete