Dear Editor and Gentle Readers,

Recently, in the Louisiana v Callais decision, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) under Chief Justice Roberts snuffed out what life was left in the Voting Rights Act (VRA) passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed in 1982. This had been a goal of Roberts since his early years clerking for Justice Rehnquist, one of the most anti minority justices in SCOTUS history.

According to Mother Jones, “Rehnquist led a brigade of white Arizona Republicans which used ‘voter caging’ tactics to harass and intimidate minority voters at the polls.”  He was Roberts’ mentor. The Callais decision was the third decision by SCOTUS since 2013 that basically neutered the efforts of civil rights marchers and pro-democracy advocates who fought to have their votes count.   

Lyndon B Johnson, in his speech after congress passed the VRA in 1965, said, “This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny.”

Before becoming chief justice, during the 1980–82 congressional debate to reauthorize the VRA, Roberts led the fight to neuter the VRA by questioning the use of the “effects” of a voting policy and instead attempted to use “intent” as the metric to judge such a policy,  something much harder – to see into someone’s heart rather than the real-life results of an action or law. This was the beginning of the dismantling of the VRA.

During his confirmation hearings in 2005, Roberts promised to be a neutral justice, calling “balls and strikes,” but he was hardly that. He had already proven his commitment to radically change the VRA and Republicans knew it.  

Beginning in 2013, the Roberts court took the first crack at the VRA in the Shelby County v Holder decision, successfully eliminating the “preclearance mechanism” whereby counties and states with a history of racial discrimination in voting were required to get preclearance, demonstrating that “any new procedures were not intended to and would not have the effect of hindering the ability to vote based on race or color.”

In this Shelby County decision, Roberts essentially declared that all those states had changed their ways… not racist… just pro-white. The federal judge who wrote the lower-court decision in Shelby County summarized example after example in his decision, reeling off stories of canceled elections, precincts shifted at the last moment, voting halls relocated to buildings that had been the sites of racial violence. Judge David Tatel did this, he said, because he had no faith that Roberts would read the congressional report [on the VRA] himself or know any of this otherwise.”

Since SCOTUS handed down its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder a decade ago, at least 29 states have enacted nearly 100 restrictive laws including many that are racially discriminatory, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, proving pro-VRA  fears were justified.

Next came a decision in 2017, Rucho v Common Cause in which Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that federal courts could not adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims because they were ill-equipped for the task. 

Now the recent Callais decision which essentially turns Section 2 of the VRA on its head.  Section 2 “prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups. ”Roberts’ logic in the Callais decision argued that any effort to combat racial discrimination was itself racial discrimination. Gov. Landry of Louisiana said on “60 Minutes” that carving out a special twisted district to pick up black votes was unfair. Political gerrymandering is ok. Racial gerrymandering is not. Louisiana is 30% black and will likely lose at least one of its two black representatives. What is fair in today’s politics? 

Justice Elena Kagen’s dissent on Callais includes, “Partisan gerrymandering...can now perform the same function that Jim Crow tactics did prior to the Voting Rights Act. There’s no need to resurrect poll taxes or literacy tests when legislatures can simply draw maps to exclude minority’s preferred candidate from winning. Against any accusations of discrimination against minority voters, legislators can simply invoke a political motive and prevail. The Voting Rights Act was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers… Callais not only tramples the Voting Rights Act, it creates the scaffolding upon which to build a new discriminatory political system.”

The ruling set off a chain reaction across the South. Florida redrew its maps within hours. Louisiana cancelled an election in progress with 42,000 votes already cast. Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina are doing the same. 

The result of this is more extreme representatives in Congress. Small “d” democracy loses.  

Bill Thibedeau

Gilpin County