From slavery to Jim Crow, to Blacks being systematically excluded from the Homestead Act and the GI Bill, to redlining in home mortgages, to discriminatory hiring practices and wide disparities in criminal justice and environmental justice outcomes, all of which resulted in effects still being felt today, there is no way we are anywhere near a “colorblind” society. Isn’t that what they said after Obama was elected, that we’re entering the “post-racial” world in the U.S.? And what did we get? The Tea Party, people walking around with guns to “water the tree of liberty,” hanging chairs in trees as a shoutout to lynchings and the resurgence of white grievance that Donald Trump rode to power. And now we’re so colorblind that we’re decimating DEI everywhere we can, including scrubbing Black history from civic institutions? I would love nothing more than for MLK’s dream to come true that we are all judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. That is not where we are. But the really sad thing is, why does any of this even matter with respect to voting rights? SCOTUS already declared the maps drawn for partisan advantage are just fine, which is why we have very few competitive districts, too many wacky extreme members of Congress and too little bipartisanship. I’m sure state legislatures can get their desired results by simply drawing their maps as partisan gerrymandering and steering clear of racial considerations in the already gutted Voting Rights Act.
Agreed. I feel like this perspective relies too much on giving people the benefit of the doubt when they have not proven to deserve it. While I usually do try to assume positive intent in my personal life, it’s very hard to do on a larger scale when minorities are still so actively repressed in this country. This perspective makes it seem like the mapmakers in Louisiana are truly focusing on abiding by the constitution in good faith, but to me it actually feels like they’re twisting it to justify their actions.
Exactly, and when viewed through the lens history- like the 3/5 compromise, the disenfranchisement of Black voters for almost 200 years, Jim Crow laws- this “normal expectation” would mean that the incumbent legislator does not represent the interests of the Black voters in the district. If the system was founded on corrupt principles and upheld by those corrupt principles for centuries, it’s not exactly a secret why some incumbents are more likely to be there than others.
Yes, this exactly!! That completely baffled me. This whole discussion has made me realize that I don’t necessarily know what factors should play into creating congressional districts. Race probably shouldn’t be the only factor. But I feel like “protecting the incumbent legislators” should NEVER factor in, let alone be the “normal expectation”!!
I couldn’t agree more. Just because a person possesses something in the present, in this case an ELECTIVE offense, said possession does not entitle them to hold it in the future.
I appreciate the differing perspectives! I do feel one article spoke more to my emotions and the other more to my logic. Both have value in reminding us, and helping us, to be critical thinkers.
For context before anyone reads this comment, I am a white female who has had to unlearn a whole heap of racism.
I am deeply disappointed in this article. It feels tone deaf to the reality that racism is alive and thriving in our country, and gerrymandering districts perpetuates the issue.
It would be a charming and lovely thing to assume that everyone has the best of intentions to their neighbors regardless of race, country of origin, or even socioeconomic status. But… as we are seeing today, they don’t. And I don’t think the answer is to give the benefit of the doubt to white people who hold the power and privilege in this country.
Being “colorblind” isn’t the answer to rectify the wrongs that have been committed to these communities just because of their skin color. White people aren’t suffering discrimination because of their skin color… black and brown people are. The injustices to these people are real and deciding to move forward with colorblindness isn’t going to repair the wrongs.
Ultimately, racism is a white problem that needs to be corrected by white people.
I’ll close with the words of my colored partner, “I wish it (skin color) doesn’t matter, but it does.”
“And while critics of color-blindness are correct that it can make us blind to systemic injustices, perhaps we could also consider its benefits.” I don’t think anyone needs to have the benefits of a truly color-blind society pointed out. It would be great if there weren’t systematic injustices that disadvantage historically oppressed minorities. When elementary schools are forced to remove MLK Jr. Day bulletin boards and the Naval Academy is removing books by Maya Angelou, we are obviously nowhere close to that as a society. (There are loads of statistics that demonstrate the factor race plays in the lives of historically-oppressed minority groups as well.) Diluting the votes of minorities based on a false premise that we are a post-race society will only exacerbate the race-based problems our country is currently facing.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Jason Steorts' piece this morning. If you've featured this back-to-back perspective before, I don't remember it but I am a huge fan of it. So in response to your opening line: Please do more of this - I think it's incredibly insightful and useful to have contributors offer well-reasoned, differing perspectives on certain issues.
"Such thoughts are, admittedly, in tension with today’s focus on racially equitable outcomes; “color-blindness” has even become something of a dirty word, suggesting indifference to the legacies of racism. The persistence of racial inequities does force us to take a hard look at how systems and social structures perpetuate injustice even when no one intends this, and I do not mean to say that we should never consider race."
This reminded me of writer Coleman Hughes. He talks a lot about race and politics, and wrote the book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. I'd love if Sharon interviewed him or had him as a guest contributor.
"But when it comes to the equality of citizens before the law and as participants in our democratic republic, nothing but color-blindness will do. Anything else makes us, rather than a nation of equal individuals, a collection of blocs who vie against one another because our interests are necessarily opposed: the only way for me to have my white opportunity district is for you not to have your Black one."
That's a thought-provoking statement. Thank you for your piece today, Jason.
When our courts allow districting absurdities to preserve political incumbents but not represent race, they are absolutely allowing districts to represent race simply by calling it something else. Despite this author’s request, I will not assume Whites in the American South are not racially motivated until their behavior stops continually indicating that they are. Just because they’ve gotten good at reframing their racism as something “legal” and found easy support in our traditionally conservative legal system doesn’t mean their end goal to preserve White entitlement is any less obvious. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right. America’s controlling class has believed itself awfully clever at that upholding dichotomy since its inception. To me this article smacks of clapping itself on the back for another legalese snow job well done.
This is indeed making me think. Turns out, things are complicated, and have nuance, and I appreciate the opportunity to explore the nuance. I think I understand the legal position here, that the 14th amendment rather than the VRA should be the basis of the non Black voters’ rights. And that in trying to not violate the VRA with the first map, LA ended up violating the 14th amendment in the second map…?
A couple of things:
The VRA reference says that members of a protected class aren’t expected to be ELECTED proportional to the population. That’s not the same as individuals having voting power proportional to the population, right?
Wanting our nation to be colorblind in its electoral processes is a lofty goal, but we would first need to eradicate racial injustices, and we are simply not there. There is too much white supremacy and white nationalism in power to risk abandoning the protections of minority groups in favor of color blindness. Maybe someday we will abandon white supremacy, and can then emerge into this mythical colorblind society, but today is not that day. (And really, it feels like we are in a backlash period where legal challenges are being made precisely to reverse the civil rights gains of the past, which pushes me even further into “protect minorities at all costs” territory.)
I agree with and appreciate the idealism and the further clarification of the VRA. It hinges upon people doing the right thing. However, when you have the expectation that the incumbent gets priority, everything flies out the window.
"The normal expectation is that nonracial criteria (such as geographic compactness, the preservation of natural and political boundaries, and the protection of incumbent legislators) will prevail."
If the districts were originally drawn with race in mind, were the incumbent legislators and political boundaries already corrupt? How is it not considering race to preserve them in that case?
As much as I respect this newsletter and the people behind it, this is disappointing. The 14th amendment was one of three implemented after the Civil War (literally referred to as the Civil War amendments) implemented to protect Black Americans. Equal protection and especially color blindness have been weaponized to legalize systemic injustice that disproportionately disadvantages Black people. The comparison to Brazil doesn't hold water, as America's history of Black enslavement is unique. Also, if the plaintiffs are arguing color blindness, why are they specifically identified as non-Black? Wouldn't Black plaintiffs be involved if it was just about compactness? This article normalizes this lawsuit, which has severe consequences if SCOTUS finds in their favor. The VRA will essentially cease to exist. Would colorblindness be ideal? Of course. But America is not there. Again, I'm disappointed at the choice to publish this article.
Thanks for hosting articles from multiple angles, Sharon. I must admit that the racial history in the US makes me highly skeptical of any defense of policies proposed by members of the dominant white party in a state like Louisiana. I wouldn’t put it past them to use “plausible deniability” tactics obfuscated by legal precedents.
This is a case where a bunch of charts would help visualize the problem — how is the population distributed by race, income, education, etc. — and how that compares to the proposed maps. I’d also like to understand the principles of district formation from a blank slate.
It is ironic how clearly the non-Black voters see racism now that it favors them less than usual.
I'm old enough to have read these arguments from the time of the Voting Rights Act. Over the decades, racism has become more polite and cautious. Interestingly, technology makes it easier to measure it by scientific means. Modern communication, like emails and texts, has exposed blatant racism that used to be hidden behind closed doors. Let's not pretend it doesn't exist.
But let's not quibble. The root of the problem is the behavior of elected officials who represent only those who voted for them, not those who voted for someone else. Whether by racial, political, economic, social, or other attributes, it is considered fine to ignore the wishes of large fractions of their constituents. Finding ways to acquire and maintain political power by disenfranchising those who disagree with them is how the game is played.
Instead of parsing the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act to figure out how to let them hold on to power, we should be generalizing it to make things more representative. But I'm not expecting that with this Supreme Court in this political climate.
I'm really struggling with this article. I've read it, listened to it, read it again, and read an AI summary of it. I don't understand the point the author is trying it make. It feels like it goes back and forth so frequently. Sometimes "color-blindness" is good and sometimes it's bad. Sometimes one side prevails and sometimes the other does. Sometimes Louisiana makes mistakes and sometimes it makes mistakes trying to correct mistakes.
What are you trying to explain? That the world is complicated? That everything isn't black and white (literally and figuratively)? Ok. Thanks? I just feel less informed and more confused after reading/listening/AIing (not A1ing) this.
Maybe that's just a me problem. Maybe everyone else got it. But I'm sorry, I didn't get it.
From slavery to Jim Crow, to Blacks being systematically excluded from the Homestead Act and the GI Bill, to redlining in home mortgages, to discriminatory hiring practices and wide disparities in criminal justice and environmental justice outcomes, all of which resulted in effects still being felt today, there is no way we are anywhere near a “colorblind” society. Isn’t that what they said after Obama was elected, that we’re entering the “post-racial” world in the U.S.? And what did we get? The Tea Party, people walking around with guns to “water the tree of liberty,” hanging chairs in trees as a shoutout to lynchings and the resurgence of white grievance that Donald Trump rode to power. And now we’re so colorblind that we’re decimating DEI everywhere we can, including scrubbing Black history from civic institutions? I would love nothing more than for MLK’s dream to come true that we are all judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. That is not where we are. But the really sad thing is, why does any of this even matter with respect to voting rights? SCOTUS already declared the maps drawn for partisan advantage are just fine, which is why we have very few competitive districts, too many wacky extreme members of Congress and too little bipartisanship. I’m sure state legislatures can get their desired results by simply drawing their maps as partisan gerrymandering and steering clear of racial considerations in the already gutted Voting Rights Act.
Agreed. I feel like this perspective relies too much on giving people the benefit of the doubt when they have not proven to deserve it. While I usually do try to assume positive intent in my personal life, it’s very hard to do on a larger scale when minorities are still so actively repressed in this country. This perspective makes it seem like the mapmakers in Louisiana are truly focusing on abiding by the constitution in good faith, but to me it actually feels like they’re twisting it to justify their actions.
“The normal expectation is that …the protection of incumbent legislators will prevail.”
Tell me the system is corrupt, without saying the system is corrupt.
Exactly, and when viewed through the lens history- like the 3/5 compromise, the disenfranchisement of Black voters for almost 200 years, Jim Crow laws- this “normal expectation” would mean that the incumbent legislator does not represent the interests of the Black voters in the district. If the system was founded on corrupt principles and upheld by those corrupt principles for centuries, it’s not exactly a secret why some incumbents are more likely to be there than others.
Laura, thank you!
That is my point exactly!
It is the “good old boys network.”
And we know how that works, don’t we?
Yes, this exactly!! That completely baffled me. This whole discussion has made me realize that I don’t necessarily know what factors should play into creating congressional districts. Race probably shouldn’t be the only factor. But I feel like “protecting the incumbent legislators” should NEVER factor in, let alone be the “normal expectation”!!
I couldn’t agree more. Just because a person possesses something in the present, in this case an ELECTIVE offense, said possession does not entitle them to hold it in the future.
“office”?
I appreciate the differing perspectives! I do feel one article spoke more to my emotions and the other more to my logic. Both have value in reminding us, and helping us, to be critical thinkers.
For context before anyone reads this comment, I am a white female who has had to unlearn a whole heap of racism.
I am deeply disappointed in this article. It feels tone deaf to the reality that racism is alive and thriving in our country, and gerrymandering districts perpetuates the issue.
It would be a charming and lovely thing to assume that everyone has the best of intentions to their neighbors regardless of race, country of origin, or even socioeconomic status. But… as we are seeing today, they don’t. And I don’t think the answer is to give the benefit of the doubt to white people who hold the power and privilege in this country.
Being “colorblind” isn’t the answer to rectify the wrongs that have been committed to these communities just because of their skin color. White people aren’t suffering discrimination because of their skin color… black and brown people are. The injustices to these people are real and deciding to move forward with colorblindness isn’t going to repair the wrongs.
Ultimately, racism is a white problem that needs to be corrected by white people.
I’ll close with the words of my colored partner, “I wish it (skin color) doesn’t matter, but it does.”
“And while critics of color-blindness are correct that it can make us blind to systemic injustices, perhaps we could also consider its benefits.” I don’t think anyone needs to have the benefits of a truly color-blind society pointed out. It would be great if there weren’t systematic injustices that disadvantage historically oppressed minorities. When elementary schools are forced to remove MLK Jr. Day bulletin boards and the Naval Academy is removing books by Maya Angelou, we are obviously nowhere close to that as a society. (There are loads of statistics that demonstrate the factor race plays in the lives of historically-oppressed minority groups as well.) Diluting the votes of minorities based on a false premise that we are a post-race society will only exacerbate the race-based problems our country is currently facing.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Jason Steorts' piece this morning. If you've featured this back-to-back perspective before, I don't remember it but I am a huge fan of it. So in response to your opening line: Please do more of this - I think it's incredibly insightful and useful to have contributors offer well-reasoned, differing perspectives on certain issues.
"Such thoughts are, admittedly, in tension with today’s focus on racially equitable outcomes; “color-blindness” has even become something of a dirty word, suggesting indifference to the legacies of racism. The persistence of racial inequities does force us to take a hard look at how systems and social structures perpetuate injustice even when no one intends this, and I do not mean to say that we should never consider race."
This reminded me of writer Coleman Hughes. He talks a lot about race and politics, and wrote the book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. I'd love if Sharon interviewed him or had him as a guest contributor.
"But when it comes to the equality of citizens before the law and as participants in our democratic republic, nothing but color-blindness will do. Anything else makes us, rather than a nation of equal individuals, a collection of blocs who vie against one another because our interests are necessarily opposed: the only way for me to have my white opportunity district is for you not to have your Black one."
That's a thought-provoking statement. Thank you for your piece today, Jason.
When our courts allow districting absurdities to preserve political incumbents but not represent race, they are absolutely allowing districts to represent race simply by calling it something else. Despite this author’s request, I will not assume Whites in the American South are not racially motivated until their behavior stops continually indicating that they are. Just because they’ve gotten good at reframing their racism as something “legal” and found easy support in our traditionally conservative legal system doesn’t mean their end goal to preserve White entitlement is any less obvious. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right. America’s controlling class has believed itself awfully clever at that upholding dichotomy since its inception. To me this article smacks of clapping itself on the back for another legalese snow job well done.
Typo Correction: “clever at upholding that dichotomy”
While I can appreciate the optimism and idealism, it feels deeply void of acknowledgment of the very present facts on the ground.
This is indeed making me think. Turns out, things are complicated, and have nuance, and I appreciate the opportunity to explore the nuance. I think I understand the legal position here, that the 14th amendment rather than the VRA should be the basis of the non Black voters’ rights. And that in trying to not violate the VRA with the first map, LA ended up violating the 14th amendment in the second map…?
A couple of things:
The VRA reference says that members of a protected class aren’t expected to be ELECTED proportional to the population. That’s not the same as individuals having voting power proportional to the population, right?
Wanting our nation to be colorblind in its electoral processes is a lofty goal, but we would first need to eradicate racial injustices, and we are simply not there. There is too much white supremacy and white nationalism in power to risk abandoning the protections of minority groups in favor of color blindness. Maybe someday we will abandon white supremacy, and can then emerge into this mythical colorblind society, but today is not that day. (And really, it feels like we are in a backlash period where legal challenges are being made precisely to reverse the civil rights gains of the past, which pushes me even further into “protect minorities at all costs” territory.)
Anxiously awaiting the opinion on this one…
I agree with and appreciate the idealism and the further clarification of the VRA. It hinges upon people doing the right thing. However, when you have the expectation that the incumbent gets priority, everything flies out the window.
Well, wait a minute...
"The normal expectation is that nonracial criteria (such as geographic compactness, the preservation of natural and political boundaries, and the protection of incumbent legislators) will prevail."
If the districts were originally drawn with race in mind, were the incumbent legislators and political boundaries already corrupt? How is it not considering race to preserve them in that case?
I did not realize the constitution did not support proportional representation. Thank you for sharing this!
As much as I respect this newsletter and the people behind it, this is disappointing. The 14th amendment was one of three implemented after the Civil War (literally referred to as the Civil War amendments) implemented to protect Black Americans. Equal protection and especially color blindness have been weaponized to legalize systemic injustice that disproportionately disadvantages Black people. The comparison to Brazil doesn't hold water, as America's history of Black enslavement is unique. Also, if the plaintiffs are arguing color blindness, why are they specifically identified as non-Black? Wouldn't Black plaintiffs be involved if it was just about compactness? This article normalizes this lawsuit, which has severe consequences if SCOTUS finds in their favor. The VRA will essentially cease to exist. Would colorblindness be ideal? Of course. But America is not there. Again, I'm disappointed at the choice to publish this article.
Thanks for hosting articles from multiple angles, Sharon. I must admit that the racial history in the US makes me highly skeptical of any defense of policies proposed by members of the dominant white party in a state like Louisiana. I wouldn’t put it past them to use “plausible deniability” tactics obfuscated by legal precedents.
This is a case where a bunch of charts would help visualize the problem — how is the population distributed by race, income, education, etc. — and how that compares to the proposed maps. I’d also like to understand the principles of district formation from a blank slate.
It is ironic how clearly the non-Black voters see racism now that it favors them less than usual.
I'm old enough to have read these arguments from the time of the Voting Rights Act. Over the decades, racism has become more polite and cautious. Interestingly, technology makes it easier to measure it by scientific means. Modern communication, like emails and texts, has exposed blatant racism that used to be hidden behind closed doors. Let's not pretend it doesn't exist.
But let's not quibble. The root of the problem is the behavior of elected officials who represent only those who voted for them, not those who voted for someone else. Whether by racial, political, economic, social, or other attributes, it is considered fine to ignore the wishes of large fractions of their constituents. Finding ways to acquire and maintain political power by disenfranchising those who disagree with them is how the game is played.
Instead of parsing the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act to figure out how to let them hold on to power, we should be generalizing it to make things more representative. But I'm not expecting that with this Supreme Court in this political climate.
I'm really struggling with this article. I've read it, listened to it, read it again, and read an AI summary of it. I don't understand the point the author is trying it make. It feels like it goes back and forth so frequently. Sometimes "color-blindness" is good and sometimes it's bad. Sometimes one side prevails and sometimes the other does. Sometimes Louisiana makes mistakes and sometimes it makes mistakes trying to correct mistakes.
What are you trying to explain? That the world is complicated? That everything isn't black and white (literally and figuratively)? Ok. Thanks? I just feel less informed and more confused after reading/listening/AIing (not A1ing) this.
Maybe that's just a me problem. Maybe everyone else got it. But I'm sorry, I didn't get it.