So, some context for this:
The Supreme Court has heard several cases about gerrymandering. The consensus is, basically, that political gerrymandering is okay (redistricting based on whether the house is Democratic or Republican), but racial gerrymandering is not okay – regardless of whether it’s meant to help or hinder minority voters. “Wait, help minority voters?” I hear you asking. Yup! Historically, some districts have been made all-black specifically because a racially-mixed district would never elect black politicians, and would essentially nullify the votes of any black voters. When the district was divided up for those reasons, a Republican majority has struck it down for being racist. But Hunt v. Cromartie (2000) says, basically, that if all the Democrats just happen to be black, then it’s okay, because it’s on political lines, not racial ones.
Okay, but that’s gerrymandering. What about other tactics to suppress your opponent’s vote that’s not gerrymandering?
The case quoted above is a case from 2016. After Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act that required some states to ask permission before changing their voting laws, North Carolina’s Republican government (including then-Governor Pat McCrory) basically set about undoing as many things that helped black voters as possible. Are there IDs that mostly black people use? They’re no longer valid. Do black people tend to both register and vote early? Eliminate early registration and early voting. Do black people tend to vote more on Sundays because of their church’s help (such as carpooling from the church parking lot)? Get rid of that, too!
And when asked about it, their justification is essentially the same as the one in Cromartie. “It’s not racist, it’s anti-Democrat. We’re just trying to keep Democrats from voting, and they just happen to be black!”
The Fourth Circuit (it never got to the Supreme Court, thank God) says, basically:
- Your reasoning is bad and you should feel bad;
- There’s no way you can justify this with “trying to stop the Democrats” when everything you got rid of was aimed at hurting the black vote;
- Even if you were trying to stop the Democrats, having race as a factor at all lets us infer that you intended to be discriminatory;
- Actually, wait, we don’t even have to infer it, because you fucking told us with your actual mouths that you intended to discriminate against black people, you literal dumbfucks.
So they struck down the law (though Republicans keep trying to change it or alter it – this article I’m linking to was published yesterday).
I’m writing all this out partially because I’m a nerd who likes context, but also partially for this reason:
- There is legal precedent that can, under certain circumstances, allow racially-biased voting laws so long as no one says they’re racially-biased. This is a major hurdle to pretty much any legal challenge to discriminatory voting laws.
- Despite this, you can still take down those laws – it’s never impossible to overturn a bad law, even if there’s not a lot of evidence, though of course it’s easier if you have evidence that good on your side (THEY SAID IT. OUT LOUD. IN COURT).
- A really good way to get rid of bad laws if you aren’t up to suing the government (though please, please, sue the government)? Fucking vote. The original omnibus law wouldn’t have been passed if Republicans weren’t in office.
Vote.
Vote them out.