The Voting Rights Act of 1965 wasn’t the top-down dictate of a rogue, liberal Supreme Court — if such a thing has ever existed. It wasn’t the brainchild of out-of-touch bureaucrats in Washington, nor was it some kind of martial settlement imposed on the states of the former Confederacy. It was, instead, an achievement of the most effective social movement of the postwar United States. The Voting Rights Act revitalized American democracy and stands as one of its great achievements. This, somehow, has been lost in the discourse around the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. The court’s clear hostility to the law, as well as the glee with which conservative Republicans have dismantled the South’s majority-minority congressional districts in its wake, makes it seem as if the V.R.A. was a handcuff placed on American politics by some outside force. The truth is that the Voting Rights Act was conceived, crafted and passed in order to further realize American democracy. And it was, itself, the product of an explosion of democratic energy. The V.R.A. was forced onto the national agenda by the tireless work of the grass roots activists in the Civil Rights Movement, who struggled, bled and put their lives on the line in a fierce fight to secure their fundamental rights as Americans. It was signed into law by a president who had won election in one of the largest landslides in American history. It was subsequently reauthorized by Congress, after Congress, after Congress, after Congress. The most recent reauthorization in 2006 was nearly unanimous, and there was broad support from the public — so much that to justify the Supreme Court’s attack on the law in Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice John Roberts had to fabricate a constitutional doctrine about the “equal sovereignty” of states, and Justice Antonin Scalia had to characterize the reauthorization as an unfair “racial entitlement” that politicians would never remove for fear of backlash. If there is any single law that you could plausibly say represents the general will of the American people, it might be one that was reaffirmed nearly every decade for 40 years by the people’s representatives. This isn’t just a historical point or a piece of idle trivia. It is essential. And it gets to what is so egregious about the court’s campaign against the law. The Voting Rights Act was an attempt by the people of the United States, affirmed across two generations of voters and lawmakers, to make good the 15th Amendment to the Constitution — itself the hard fought product of war and reconstruction. It was an attempt to wield the authority of the federal government to secure the fundamental right to vote as well as the fundamental right to representation. It stood for substantive equal protection — the chance to make democracy real. The V.R.A. was not, contra John Roberts and the rest, an expression of colorblindness, indifferent to the social realities of the United States. It did not pretend to treat supposed neutrality as truly neutral, nor did it place racial inequality outside the remit of the Constitution. And it was not, as this court would have it, the bland expression of a bloodless commitment to anti-discrimination. In fact, it was the most significant attempt in this country’s history to realize the promise of political equality. The Voting Rights Act has more — much more — democratic legitimacy than this Supreme Court has ever enjoyed. After all, most of this court’s conservative majority was appointed by presidents who entered office as winners of the Electoral College but not the popular vote. It is that relative difference in democratic legitimacy that makes this court’s voting rights jurisprudence so offensive. Those voting rights rulings, from Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 to Callais in 2026, come from a court that has placed itself above the people at large. It is a court that will, according to its whims, ignore the clear commands, directions and intent of Congress. It is a court that treats voters and legislators as errant children to be corralled and disciplined by wise jurists. It is a court that doesn’t answer hard constitutional questions as they arise as much as it imposes constitutional meaning based on its narrow interests and ideological preoccupations. It is a court that is trying to shape the political system to its liking, despite the claims of the chief justice, with no limits other than its partisan preferences. It is a court, in other words, that is wielding a cramped and parochial vision of the Constitution against American democracy, rather than treating the Constitution as a tool for realizing our democratic aspirations. There have been many frustrating decisions from this Supreme Court. Louisiana v. Callais may not even be its worst decision — that prize might still go to Trump v. United States, where the chief justice conjured, out of thin air, an anti-constitutional doctrine of criminal immunity for the president. Callais, however, might be the most emblematic of this court’s decisions: a flashing warning that our democracy is being crushed underneath the imperial authority of an arrogant and reactionary juristocracy. We can either discipline that court — and put it in its place — or accept our fate as its subjects. What I WroteThis week, I wrote about the dangerous effects of Louisiana v. Callais on the entire political system. The main consequence, however, might be to undermine American democracy altogether and push this nation’s politics to an even more dangerous place of high partisan tension and ideological Balkanization. I also did a video on why the United States needs radical election reform. Now ReadingAsem Alnabih on the still-ongoing war on Gaza for Boston Review. Nicholas Mulder on freedom of the seas for The New York Review of Books. Adam Serwer on political violence for The Atlantic. Clayton Dalton on how Israel has cut off humanitarian aid to Gaza for The New Yorker. Alan Elrod on parasocial politics for Liberal Currents. Photo of the Week
Mt. Rubidoux Park in Riverside, Calif. Now Eating: Tofu and Sweet Potato Peanut Butter CurryI don’t have many comments here. This was very easy and very delicious. Serve with rice or the grain of your choice. Recipe from NYT Cooking. Ingredients
Directions Heat a large Dutch oven or heavy pot on medium-high. Add the oil and onion and cook until softened, 2 minutes. Add the garlic, ginger, curry powder and crushed red pepper, and stir until fragrant, 1 minute. Add the sweet potatoes and stock. Cover, reduce heat to medium-low and cook for 10 minutes. Add the peanut butter and coconut milk and stir until the peanut butter is melted and well combined. Increase heat to medium-high and add the tofu, peas and soy sauce, and cook until warmed through and the sauce is thick, 3 to 5 minutes. Taste and season with salt and pepper. Serve over rice. Top with cilantro leaves and chopped peanuts, with lime wedges on the side. Thanks for reading. You will soon start to get my columns emailed to you too. Read past editions of the newsletter here. If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Have feedback? Send me a note at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com. You can also follow me on Twitter (@jbouie), Instagram and TikTok.
|
