“Today’s decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act,” US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) thundered. It is “designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all over this country to elect their candidate of choice.”

File under “every accusation is a confession.”

SCOTUS’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais quashed the argument that Louisiana is not just permitted, but required, to gerrymander congressional districts for the purpose of ensuring that candidates from — and claiming to collectively represent because REASONS — particular racial groups are nearly guaranteed to win election. Good for the court.

Jeffries is big mad. Why?

His criticism assumes, absent any rational basis, that all members of any “community of color” can, will, and must choose to support and vote for ONLY candidates from that “community.” And it assumes, again absent any rational basis, that voters who are not members of that “community” can, will, and must choose to support and vote ONLY for candidates who aren’t part of said “community.”

That view is no different its essence than claims that black people — ALL black people — prefer fried chicken and watermelon for lunch between the crack binges they go on right after picking up their welfare checks. And that white people —  ALL white people — keep robes, hoods, and nooses hanging in their closets to haul out for entertainment purposes between meals of white bread and cheap domestic beer with methamphetamine chasers.

Jeffries is, in other words, openly and virulently racist.

The Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The right to vote does not imply any guarantee of Pantone Matching System [TM] closeness in skin tone between the candidates elected and the voting majorities in districts. Nor should it.

If you’re voting on the basis of skin color, You. Are. A. Racist.

If you choose to vote, there are many other things to base your vote on than the candidates’ races, and almost all of those things are better criteria.

What are the candidates’ positions on the policy issues you care about?

Are the candidates of good moral fiber?

Are the candidates upstanding and contributing members of the whole district “community” rather than just beholden to one racial subgroup of that community?

“Representative government” is difficult if not impossible even with no racism involved. Assuming that all people of a particular sex, occupation, ZIP code, etc. have similar interests or needs is just as irrational as basing such assumptions on race.

I suspect there are still quite a few racists among us, although thankfully fewer than there used to be.

But if we’re going to engage in the charade of “representative government” (I consider that a myth and a fantasy), we shouldn’t cater to them by drawing districts to  enshrine their views in that system.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY