Obama re: Supreme Court Ruling on Voting Rights

[Jrose]

[Reported by Lauren Gambino, The Guardian 15.13 EDT]

'Obama says supreme court ruling frees states to 'systematically weaken voting power of racial minorities'
Former president Barack Obama has issued this statement in reaction to the supreme court’s landmark decision today to “effectively gut a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act”.

'He said the ruling frees “state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities - so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias’”.

'And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.

'The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers - not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.'

[Lovie777]

1. K & R................

[-misanthroptimist]

2. Seems to me...

...that gerrymandering on the basis of partisanship is identical to doing it on the basis of race, given that 90%+ of AAs vote Democratic.

[dpibel]

4. Precisely

And that is the extra added in your face juice that this supreme court loves so well.

[walkingman]

5. It is definitely an overlap...no question.

But with the technology of today and party affiliation being public record in many states it truly in many cases become the politicians picking their voters, instead of voters picking their politicians.

I wish we would go to some sort of proportional voting. Where the party that gets, for example, 30 percent of the votes gets roughly 30 percent of the seats in the legislature. I think this would be very good at the State level and at the Federal level eliminate the "winner take all" system

[pat_k]

7. So you can gerrymander to reduce Democratic Party representation, but not to ensure fair minority representation.

Seems they hit the ideal features that benefit Republican white supremacists.

Or perhaps I'm missing something?

[MadameButterfly]

8. And the idea that partisanship is ok if it isn't about races is ridiculous anyway

The purpose then of gerrymandering is to keep whoever is in power and make it impossible for the opposition to win. It ends democracy whether or not it affects a particular race. It seems SCOTUS forgot about the constitution.

[pat_k]

12. The six black-robed traitors on SCOTUS burned the constitution long ago.

Actually, it had already been burned by five SCOTUS traitors (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) with the Bush v. Gore decision.

None Dare Call It Treason
Five Supreme Court Justices are criminals in the truest sense of the word.
Vincent Bugliosi
February 5, 2001

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/none-dare-call-it-treason/

[Dave Bowman]

3. Damn I miss that guy.

[angrychair]

6. Explain it to me like I'm 5 years old

How is creating a majority white district perfectly fine but a majority Black district is not?

[pat_k]

9. You can gerrymander to reduce Democratic Party representation, but not to ensure fair minority representation.

Or perhaps I'm missing something?

[Cirsium]

11. Because they are white

White people get to have things. End of story. Why? Because.

[malaise]

10. Very Important

All of them must condemn this madness

[orleans]

13. so depressing, so infuriating

maybe it's my low mood reacting to this but when i read

'The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers - not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.'

i had one thought:

they won't