Why the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act after six decades in a blow to Black politicians

For those of us who grew up during the Civil Rights era, there are some ugly memories.

There was “Bloody Sunday” in 1965, at Alabama’s Edmund Pettus Bridge, when troopers brutally attacked Black protesters. 

These marchers, led by John Lewis, were met with tear gas and whips as they demanded voting rights.

Two days later, Martin Luther King Jr. led a smaller march to the bridge, where the demonstrators prayed and turned back to avoid further violence.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE AS REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WAGE REDISTRICTING WAR

There was a sit-in at the White House, a protest at the Capitol and, that summer, the Watts riots in Los Angeles.

Two years earlier, Alabama’s Bull Connor turned powerful hoses on protesters, including children, powerful enough to knock them down and cause injury. 

All this led to LBJ signing the Voting Rights Act passed by Congress, barring racial discrimination in voting, with strong support from Republicans as well as Democrats.

DESANTIS’ REDISTRICTING FIGHT GETS MAJOR BOOST FROM HIS POTENTIAL GOP SUCCESSOR: ‘DOING THE RIGHT THING’

And now, thanks to the Supreme Court, it is pretty much dead.

Much has changed in the last six decades, I’m the first to admit. We’ve had a Black president who was elected for two terms. Most major cities have had one or more Black mayors. There have been Black governors, dozens of Black members of Congress and a Black vice president.

Now the court claims the voting law has been a victim of its own success.

In a raw display of ideological power, all six conservative justices voted to gut the law, with the three liberal members strongly opposed.

By the way, newsrooms were virtually all White in 1965, leaving the L.A. Times in the embarrassing position of having to send a Black salesman to Watts. Now we have Black anchors, newspaper editors and heads of news divisions, though that entailed its own battles over affirmative action.

The John Roberts court has specialized in overturning laws that have governed the country since deep into the last century. Roe v. Wade comes to mind.

The opinion by Samuel Alito says it’s perfectly fine for states to engage in gerrymandering to protect incumbents, or favor one political party, as long as it doesn’t involve race.

The voting act is violated only when “the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.” 

In the Louisiana case at hand, the court ruled that the state had violated the Constitution by creating a second majority-Black district.

JUDGES SAY THEY’LL REDRAW LOUISIANA CONGRESSIONAL MAP THEMSELVES IF LAWMAKERS CAN’T

The Wall Street Journal editorial page hailed the ruling: “The Voting Rights Act was a landmark of American liberty that helped to break Jim Crow. But that storied purpose has been twisted over the years by both parties to justify the use of race to gerrymander.”

In effect, supporters say, the creation of majority-Black districts has ghettoized Black lawmakers, many of whom have grown old in these safe seats.

This question of intent was an issue back when I was covering the Justice Department during the Reagan administration. And the high court has been chipping away at the law since then.

The New York Times reports that critics “expect that any reconfiguration will not only endanger Black incumbents, some of whom have held office for decades, but also threaten a rising generation of Black Democrats in the South, who already have few avenues for ascending in politics.”

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY’S HOTTEST STORIES

The conservative court has leaned hard to the right on other racial issues, such as striking down affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 by saying race cannot be considered a “plus” factor for applicants.

Alito argues that Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as others. Presto, problem solved! 

The SCOTUS ruling on voting rights leaves a gray area by leaving the door ajar without slamming it shut, which means challenges will undoubtedly make it back to the justices – without much chance of success.