Letters to the Editor: Supreme Court set voting rights back, but now’s not the time to be demoralized
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the Voting Rights Act reverses decades of progress, eliminating federal protections for minority voting rights and enabling states to engage in partisan gerrymandering.
- Critics argue Justice Alito’s reasoning ignores recent U.S. history and the ongoing reality of racial discrimination, while his decisions reflect a pattern inconsistent with protecting minority rights.
- Despite the setback, advocates say this is not a time for demoralization but for mobilizing around reform, new laws, and constitutional amendments to ensure fair representation.
To the editor: The Supreme Court decision just reversed hard-won progress under the Voting Rights Act (“‘Earthquake’: Supreme Court limits Voting Rights Act in setback for Black Democrats, boost for GOP,” April 29).
It means less representation for millions of Black Americans and other voters of color, as lawmakers gain the ability to manipulate their districts. There will be more extreme partisan gerrymandering, lopsided elections, a less accountable government and policies that hurt rather than help with everyday life.
But this is not the time to be demoralized, because we know it does not have to be this way. We can mobilize around reform, new laws and, where necessary, constitutional amendments for fairer government. Only then can we feel the benefits of a balanced court, a truly representative Congress and an election system free from the distorting power of extreme corporate and partisan manipulation.
Paul Bacon, Hallandale Beach, Fla.
..
To the editor: I have a fix for your headline. Instead of reading “Supreme Court limits Voting Rights Act in setback for Black Democrats,” it should read, “Supreme Court limits Voting Rights Act in a setback for democracy.” Isn’t that much better?
Ken Narasaki, Santa Monica
..
To the editor: In authoring the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on minority voting rights, Justice Samuel A. Alito ignored early and recent U.S. history.
In Federalist 10, James Madison explicitly celebrated a diversity of community voices as conferring protection against a single majority running roughshod over the rights of minorities. In tandem with the 2019 Rucho vs. Common Cause ruling, there is now no federal protection for minority voting rights. That enables state majority political parties, not communities, to select their political representatives, exactly contrary to Madison’s vision.
Alito’s justification for doing away with protections for racial minority voting rights was that “vast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South, which have made great strides in ending entrenched racial discrimination.” This statement ignores the recent, overt embrace of racist statements by U.S. federal officials and the racial resegregation of schools occasioned by recent school choice laws.
William McCarthy, Malibu
..
To the editor: Justice Alito fools no one. He proves several consistencies through his decisions, speeches and written opinions.
First, the upside-down American flag once outside his home, supposedly placed that way by his wife over a neighborhood dispute, is consistent with his ongoing, decades-long attempts to turn the laws and accepted principles in the U.S. upside down. Second, any possible distinction between his intent and impact no longer exists. Third, his attempt to appear as a reasonable intellectual only further obfuscates what I imagine his real intent to be, to embrace white supremacy.
Let’s apply Alito’s logic to himself. Can he prove that his intent is not to discriminate? And I haven’t even begun to enumerate examples of his religious fanaticism. Justice Alito’s Bill of Rights is a very small list that he would apply only to those who look, feel, think and believe as he does.
Joel Pelcyger, Los Angeles
