Week Six - Voting Rights and The Apex of National Civil Rights Legislation
Share an idea or two from this week's reading. What was most interesting to you? What was most strange? How does the reading this week fit into issues and discussions we have had in this class?
Reading Benjamin Griffith's "Defense Strategies in Voting Rights Litigation after Shaw and Miller", I find myself struck by the description of and elaboration on section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 itself prohibits discriminatory voting procedures/requirements as they apply to language, racial, color minority groups. Griffith mentions the 1982 Voting Rights Act Amendments, in relation to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the accompanying Senate Report filed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (716-717). The Senate Report offers typical factors for the court to consider when deciding if an electoral device is in violation of section 2. Considering the time at which the report was submitted, I am struck by the foresight and how progressive some of the language sounds. For instance, the report suggests that the court consider such things as "the history of official voting-related discrimination in the state or political subdivision" and "the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process". The language used in this report is so similar to modern day claims that there is a case for reparations, I almost can't believe it was written in 1982. Should we not apply the same logic to minority's current relationships to economics and the criminal justice system? I think that if we did, social progress would happen much more rapidly.
ReplyDeleteIn Griffith's "Defense Strategies in Voting Rights Litigation after Shaw and Miller", I was struck by the decision based on causation in the case of NAACP, Inc. v. City of Columbia (726-727). The District Court rejected a section 2 challenge against the city council election methods in Columbia because they found that the cause of the defeats of black candidates was the lack of cohesion among black voters, and not anything to do with white voters or discriminatory laws and procedures. The NAACP attributed low turnout among black citizens with "residual effects of past discrimination," bleak possibilities of success, and an inability to find out about the election and obtain transportation. The court disputed these claims, saying that a) "there are no vestiges of past discrimination that significantly interact with present political structures to deny access to the political system", and b) a more probable explanation was that black voters did not turnout for more standard reasons, like satisfaction with the way things in the city are being run, or having no preference for either candidate (727). Even without knowing the situation in Columbia at the time, I would say the NAACP's explanations seem far more convincing than the court's latter explanation. I find the court's first claim to be problematic, because past discrimination greatly influenced political structures in this country, and the disproportionate engagement in the political system heavily implies a consequent legacy of unequal access.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little bit confused about the Baker v Carr decision. From my understanding, the Court ruled that redistricting is justiciable and thus the Court does have jurisdiction to claim actions of redistricting unconstitutional. I also understand that this case was a landmark decision which essentially stated that each person's vote should hold the same weight as another vote. My confusion then is in how, if we were to hold precedent, is the electoral system, which essentially gives some votes more weight than others, constitutional? Also, if redistricting was determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Court in 1962, why has it taken until 2017 (or later) for the Court to make a decision regarding Gerrymandering?
ReplyDeleteAlthough discrimination is all too often difficult to prove, Griffith’s analysis on Defense Strategies notes that these improved “strategies focus on the current impact on electoral participation and access rather than historical discrimination” (Griffith 716). As Griffith describes, arguments based on historical prejudice, the first instinct in many civil rights contexts, are largely ineffective for this purpose. The innovative argument of this strategy prompted me to wonder how this strategy would play out in other civil rights contexts, and the ways in which it would shift discourse around legislation to protect minority groups.
ReplyDeleteGriffith writes on that minority groups have their own forms of this so-called retaliation though "anecdotal evidence or lay testimony indicative of minority access and participation, biracial coalition, and the lack of racial animus in the challenged electoral system" (719). His statement supplies agency for minority groups in the context besides historical precedent. However, I too am perplexed by this space of testimonial evidence which has been largely left out of the historical narrative and how it would have shaped the legal discourse and documentation involving marginalized groups.
DeleteThis idea of testimonial evidence serving as the vehicle through which minority groups present their case in court perplexes me as well. I am curious to find where the intersection between focus on "historical discrimination" and "anecdotal evidence" coincides. Would it be possible for both ideas to coexist alongside each other in order to present a well rounded case before the law, or should they not be applied to one another, and rather examined through a singular critical lens.
DeleteKlarman's chapter on the era after the Brown II was interesting. I found it remarkable that only 53% of southern blacks supported the Brown decision for desegregation. I assumed that it would have been much higher. I was also unaware of the extent of how difficult it was to file a lawsuit to combat segregation in schools. Not only would they receive retaliation from whites, but it was also brutally expensive to try a case. Most desegregation lawsuits were not filed until 7 years after they claimed they were going to sue. I also shuddered when Klarman said that Mississippi blacks were aware that "the KKK tries your case long before it can get before the Supreme Court." Scary times.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing I found in the reading can be summed up from a quote from Karman: "The political dynamics of the segregation issue combined with certain features of southern politics to propel public debate toward extremism, independently of the machinations of politicians. Most officials, including those who were ordinarily inclined toward racial moderation, became more extremist to survive, and those few who resisted were generally destroyed." (Karman 408-409). The emergence of extremist opinions/stances was a theme that marked post-Brown, and these strong views drowned out the voices of the moderates for a good 10 years. I think we are going through a similar occurrence during this current presidential administration, where both the GOP and Democratic parties are grappling with what their new image shall become.
ReplyDeleteI also found Klarman's attribution of the rise in white, southern political extremism to the Brown decision to be interesting. He claims that "hardcore segregationists" united were a more powerful political force than individuals who agreed to adhere to the Supreme Court's decision (Klarman 409). Klarman explains that politicians began to disregard their constituency by abandoning their neutrality in favor of more extremist stances regarding segregation. Ironically enough, this past election cycle brought about politicians that tend to favor very extremists positions regarding other issues. The resurgence of extremism is an unsettling phenomena.
DeleteI found the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction over Baker v. Carr to be very interesting. The issue focuses around the question of whether the court has the authority to decide a political question. In their interpretation of the law by deciding that they did indeed have jurisdiction, the Court expanded it's own power and authority over the other branches, as the court has been prone to do since Marbury v. Madison.
ReplyDeleteI had a similar reaction to Isabel in regards to this week reading. I found reading the Baker v Carr decision to be particularly interesting, in that the opinion focuses in on determining whether or not the issue at hand was a political question. More often than not, grappling with an issue like this is made little notice in an opinion. Thus, I found it particularly interesting that Brennan included this so heavily in the opinion. I do agree with the court and acknowledge that issues of redistricting can in fact be murky and could be argued to be a political question better left to be decided by the legislative branch, but I do think the court made the right decision in choosing to rule on this case. Last year, we discussed this case in Civil Liberties, however not to this extent and I found the details regarding the issue particularly interesting as well.
DeleteI agree with both Isabel and Taylor in that I found it interesting how the court determined that legislative reapportionment did not necessarily constitute a political question, and was therefore justiciable. Be determining justiciability, Justice Brennan not only took up the questions presented in this case in particular, but also opened up the possibility of the court taking up issues that walk the line in terms of being a political question in the future. With that said, Baker v. Carr does raise some questions. Given the fact that landmark decisions like Brown v. Board were already so difficult to enforce, how was the court able to enforce the ruling in a case like Baker v. Carr that walked the line of being a political question so carefully?
DeleteSimilar to Isabel and Taylor, I was also interested in the role of court in Baker v. Carr. As a country, I think we pride ourselves on the power of the people and how much the people’s voice matters in our government both local and federal. However, the impact and voice of the people is not as significant as we are lead to believe. In recent history, the issue of representation has plagued our government. I believe this issue is detrimental to our country because without proper representation, the power of the people is diluted and lost. In Baker v. Carr, this idea is explored. Within the document, the most interesting aspect of the argument is the power of the courts. The article notes, “With the plaintiffs argument that the legislature of Tennessee is guilty of a clear violation of the state constitution and the rights of the plaintiffs…the evil is a serious one which should be corrected without further delay…the remedy in this situation clearly does not lie within the courts” (7). After reading this quote, I am wondering that if the courts are not responsible for abolishing laws that are unconstitutional, then what purpose do they serve? In order to have an efficient government, the people must have the ability to make change and should not be constrained.
DeleteI was interested to read further about the actual implications of Brown v. Board in Klarman's reading this week. On 359, Klarman mentions the many loopholes schools could find in the ruling; for example, the did not require them to integrate--only to desegregate. Many school districts allowed for the easy voluntary transfer of students from desegregated schools to others with different racial makeups, which was an option largely taken advantage by both whites and blacks. Members of the NAACP were disappointed so few blacks were exercising their newfound right to equal education, but many blacks were afraid of exposing their children to mistreatment in these desegregated schools. This reminds me of something I said in my first blog post--that new legislation can look attractive and progressive on the surface, but states can always find ways to abuse it so that it does little to actually improve the experiences of black Americans. Both today and in the immediate aftermath of Brown v. Board, blacks have no doubt that they are subject to unfair discrimination in many environments despite milestones made in civil rights legislation. This again proves that policies designed to protect black rights and dignity are insufficient as long as underlying tensions continue to exist.
ReplyDeleteAlong with Anya, I was also fascinated to continue reading of the aftermath of Brown v. Board and how not only schools, but African Americans responded to the ruling. As Klarman states that only around under %5 of African Americans even chose to attend a racially-mixed school. Although the ruling for Brown v. Board took place in 1954, in former Confederate states: "No desegregation at all occurred until 1957, other than in two school districts in Tennessee, five in Arkansas with few blacks, and roughly one hundred in West and South Texas, which contained about 1 percent of the state's black schoolchildren" (348). So, while this view of Brown v. Board being a landmark case, on one hand is true, but on the other hand still didn't solve many of the deep-rooted practices of racism and segregation that persist in society to this day.
DeleteIn our discussion in class, I think a very important point brought up was the idea of sacrifices made for voting rights. The children's march was the key idea behind this. Civil Rights leaders knew they were putting their children in danger by asking them to march, but if it meant furthering the fight for civil rights, then ultimately, more lives would be saved by doing so. This philosophy also came into play in the church bombing of 1963, when four young girls were killed. It is a shame that often movements have to get to the point of young lives being lost before any change is brought forth, and I think it is a tactic that should always be last resort.
ReplyDelete