Mississippi’s
Republican Gov. Tate Reeves made a politically shrewd decision to issue
a special session call to authorize lawmakers to draw new state Supreme
Court district lines 21 days after the U.S. Supreme Court rules in a
controversial Louisiana
congressional redistricting case that many high court observers believe
will weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).
Reeves’ decision gives the GOP legislative majority a chance to draw new
state Supreme Court lines for the first time since 1987 if the nation’s
highest court indeed mandates changes in VRA interpretation of election
law changes and enforcement. The governor’s
call has encouraged his fellow Republicans and angered Democrats.
In Louisiana v. Callais, the nation’s highest court is deciding a
constitutional challenge to a congressional district drawn to comply
with the law’s requirement that election maps provide minority
communities with an equal opportunity to elect representatives
of their choice. Observers believe the court could limit the use of
race-based legal remedies to protect minority voters.
Section 2 of the VRA prohibits minority voting dilution through tactics,
legislation, or practices that weaken minority voting strength. Section
2 prevents municipalities from enacting practices that give minorities
an unfair disadvantage in electing candidates
of their choice and has been held enforceable nationwide.
Another critical 1975 amendment to Section 2 of the VRA provided that
proof of discriminatory purpose or intent was not required under a
Section 2 claim.
Mississippi elections have orbited the VRA for over six decades, as have
those of the rest of the southern states. It was evident that the
promises of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be difficult, if not
impossible, to deliver without the passage of the
Voting Rights Act. The VRA put some teeth in the CRA.
Under the VRA’s Section 5, any change in election laws and procedures
must be subject to “preclearance” by the U.S. Justice Department before
implementation. In 1965, “preclearance” was said to be a temporary
requirement that would expire in five years.
The original law defined “covered jurisdictions” to include Alabama,
Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia.
In addition, specific political subdivisions (usually counties) in four
other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North
Carolina) were also covered.
In 1975, Congress extended and expanded the VRA, adding a “covered
jurisdiction” formula that applied to Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in
their entirety, and to parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York,
North Carolina, and South Dakota. In 2006, Congress
extended the VRA for another 25 years.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that
it was “unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of
the VRA to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance
requirement of Section 5 of the VRA.” The
Holder ruling held that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was
unconstitutional unless Congress retooled it as a national safeguard
against the denial of voting rights rather than as a regional safeguard
applied primarily in the South. Congress never
rose to address that judicial challenge.
Exacerbating the urgency of drawing new state Supreme Court district
lines is a separate redistricting case that specifically addresses
Mississippi’s current Supreme Court districts. U.S. District Judge
Sharion Aycock ruled in that case that the state’s current
districts dilute Black voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the
VRA.
A Black state Supreme Court justice has never been elected to the
Mississippi Supreme Court. The four Black justices who have served –
Reuben V. Anderson, Fred L. Banks Jr., James E. Graves Jr., and current
Presiding Justice Leslie D. King – have all been gubernatorial
appointees.
Judge Aycock ordered the Mississippi Legislature to redraw the
districts, but lawmakers declined to act while the Callais case was
under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals eventually paused the case on that basis.
Aycock is under no requirement to consider the governor’s special
session call as she moves forward in the case after lawmakers failed to
act. But the call provides the legislative leadership with a measure of
political cover as both the Louisiana and Mississippi
cases move forward.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.
14 comments:
I was waiting for Sid to identify or explain 'shrewd'. I still am.
Waiting for Sid to explain his use of the word 'shrewd'.
It means Sid is certain it will work in supporting the current GOP effort to make us a country with one party headed by that party's leader. I think he is right and we are well on our way to becoming a dictatorship...that's what both fascism and communism have in common. One party in power with one leader chosen by that party. Frankly, I think our democratic republic has already ended and many who meant well and thought it was about fiscal policy and not power will be sorry. The hint is ignoring the rule of law and punishing any who have opposed you so no one else will . Trump is no Eisenhower, Reagan or Bush . They all knew a President should serve the best interests of the entire country, not just his party or himself.
It's about to happen based upon Supremes ruling this am.
8:46, that’s one opinion. America is not becoming a dictatorship. It’s amazing how many people have zero faith in this country. Put the news down and go live your life outside all the political propaganda. You will see that this country is not doomed by politics, climate change or whatever the media wants you to be worried about.
8:46 just summarized the Obama, Biden, Harris, Soros Democrat party and their aims. The Trump presidency is a direct result of pushback from mainstream American patriots who oppose those policies. Democrats embody Alinsky Rules for Radicals. Accuse others of that which you do. Let’s see. Here are just a few:
A leader chosen by that party…. Biden was ousted in a party coup and Kamala was installed without a single primary vote
Single party rule… flood the country with welfare recipients who will vote for free stuff. Skew census numbers with welfare recipients so that republicans never win another election and lose congress forever
Pack the Supreme Court … the aim of democrats, so says Carville and others
Who’s the fascist party, Einstein?
Who is the dictator? Who is the king? Certainly not Trump. He doesn’t suppress the morons at No Kings protests. He abides by court decisions. He hasn’t tried to disarm the public like Dems want to do. He really sucks at being a tyrant.
Louisiana v. Callais has been decided and the news is bad for Donkeycrats!
Sid, please retire and go on an extended vacation. We will get in touch if we need you.
Bennie, we hardly knew ye.
I have absolutely zero faith in this country, especially our President and the "leadership" he has appointed. He absolutely wants to become a dictator, and he is well on his way to doing so with the Supreme Court in his pocket and the Repugnantians afraid to do anything about him.
11:08, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how much TDS you have. I have never heard such a misinformed opinion in my life. You should get outside and enjoy life a little more.
1150, TDS applies to people who ignore the corruption of this Administration and the use of government agencies to go after political enemies.
With the economy, Trump has the worst jobs record since Hoover. In his first term, his first three years had a lower average GDP and job creation numbers than Obama's last 3 years. Then, Trump mishandled Covid, helping to set off world-wide inflation.
This time he has been worse with his tariffs and the attack on Iran that has solidified the Iranian regime and given Iran a new deterrent with the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
I will agree with you that he will not be a dictator. He is too incompetent to pull it off. He has also surrounded himself with buffoons.
So will the special session be limited to only redrawing the Supreme Court districts? Or will they be redrawing the maps for the upcoming federal elections too?
If they are redrawing all maps, then Tate’s press release deliberately conflated the case that was just decided, and the case that’s currently at the 5th Circuit.
That would be completely dishonest, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Or will they be redrawing the maps for the upcoming federal elections too?
Post-primaries? I doubt it.
Post a Comment