This is a great time of year if you happen to live along "Tobacco Road". What's not to love about being in North Carolina and cheering for one of those great college basketball teams down there. Yep, it's great to be in the "Tar Heel" state this time of year. Well, unless, of course, you happen to be a person of color living in Pender County. Yes folks, just in case you have been sleeping for the past few days, let me update you on what your supremes did yesterday:
By a five to four margin your supremes decided that the Voting Rights Act shouldn't be as powerful anymore in a post racial A-merry-ca. No sir, not when we have a black prez. Who needs something as racial as a Voting Rights Act? People in A-merry-ca --especially the South-- don't see race anymore.
So let's see now, the supremes decided in a case styled Bartlett v. Strickland, that because Pender County is not majority black, the Voting Rights Act shouldn't apply. In essence what they said is that county,state, and city officials should not consider race when drawing up electoral districts if you black folks don't make up the majority. (Nice, so if you are in the majority you get the protection of an act that you don't really need because you are in the MAJORITY. But if you are in the minority and you need to have a say in how your government is run; no voice for you ) Poor North Carolina, their state lawmakers actually tried to draw up a district where they thought that a black candidate could actually win. But not so fast. See, in post racial A-merry-ca, that is not fair to the white folks in Pender County who might want to elect.... well, a white candidate. It's not fair that the 39% of black folks in Pender County get to combine with another county to create a district that might elect the black guy. So they sued the state, and when it was all said and done, the supremes agreed with them.
Seems the lawmakers of Carolina misread the law. The law only applied when a "geographically compact group of minority voters could form a majority in a single member district." So said the judges in the majority, led by the man who couldn't remember his lines when he was swearing in the chosen one. (Guess which side Clarence was on? That's not a trick question) Of course there was a dissenting opinion: Four justices agreed with the field that this is a step backwards for civil rights because it would "discourage minority 'opportunity districts' in which blacks or Hispanics could win with the support of whites". This should be fun come redistricting time again down South. We will see how far we have come with this race thing.
"State Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D.,Vt.) said the ruling 'dealt a serious blow to the progress of the civil rights movement' by limiting the application of the Voting Rights Act."
Oh calm down Patrick, you are still stuck in the sixties. Welcome to the age of Obama. There is no more need for a "civil rights movement".
"Next month, the court will hear a closely watched challenge to another part of the Voting Rights Act which requires Southern officials to obtain the permission of the Justice Department before making changes in their election rules. "
Clarence should just vote now and get it over with.