Supreme Court bats 500

Supreme Court bats 500

Miami Herald: At first blush, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on Tuesday limiting the protections of part of the Voting Rights Act seems like a compromise rooted in Solomonic wisdom. The court majority said that race must be considered in drawing political boundaries only when minority voters make up at least 50 percent of a single-member district.

It was the first time the court has settled on a numerical ratio to explain Congress’ intent in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits the dilution of minority votes.

Contrary to intent

The court’s 50-percent math doesn’t work in the political arena for the simple reason that it leaves districts with sizable numbers of minority voters, but less than 50 percent, vulnerable to vote dilution. This is neither what Congress intended, nor how the law has been interpreted in other decisions by the Supreme Court.

The case before the court involved a decision by the North Carolina Legislature to strengthen minority representation in a district that was 39 percent minority by combining it with a district in another county. The state Supreme Court struck down the redistricting effort, saying it was not necessary to comply with the act. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with that ruling.

The high court’s decision may have a patina of fairness, but it misses the primary point of Section 2, which is meant to discourage dilution of minorities’ ability to elect political representatives. The court’s 50-percent-or-better ruling means that minority voters are entitled to protection only in situations where they make up at least half of the electorate.

The court’s ruling is contrary to the intent of the Voting Rights Act. Congress should revisit the law and define more precisely how the rights of minority voters are to be protected.