The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog
Voting Rights

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

As I pointed out last week, President Obama has a unique opportunity, as the first black President, to engage in anact of personal statesmanship that would be good both good for the country and his re-election chances: declare victory in the War on Discrimination. Bring the federal diversicrat troops home from their long battle against America’s employers!

Of course, Obama’s not going to do that. Indeed, the entire concept is completely off the radar of respectable political discourse. If yousuggested it to—taking a liberal Bigfoot at random—Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate economist would merely look confused until he finally grasped the idea. Then, when he understood its elegant logic, he would become enraged that you even mentioned it.

So, this week, I’m going to offer the President another helpful idea for farsighted reform. This one would even help the Democrats escape some of the redistricting jam they’ve gotten themselves into for the next decade or so:

Obama should ask the new Congress to pare back the Voting Rights Act to just its colorblind elements—tossing out as obsolete the sections crudely (and arguably unconstitutionally) intended to benefit minorities.

The Democrats were crushed by the GOP in the 2010 state legislatureelections. By one estimate, Republicans picked up 680 legislative seats. This was extremely bad timing for the Democrats. These more Republican legislatures will get to redistrict many of the U.S. House and state electoral districts, using the upcoming 2010 Census results, for the 2012 through 2020 elections.

Political consultant John Feehery says: “Republicans will have the pen in redrawing [House] 195 seats, while Democrats will have the power in only 45 seats …”

The paradoxical role that the Voting Rights Act will play in the upcoming orgy of gerrymander is difficult for white liberals to comprehend. They generally assume that “civil rights laws”—being, by definition, good—automatically benefit nice white people like themselves, at the expense of the mean white people in the Other Party. The term “civil rights”has such talismanic, brain-sapping power that few liberals can get their heads around the way in which the VRA hurts them—by facilitating arms-length, tacit deals between minority Democrats and white Republicans.

Thus Slate ran on November 10, 2010 a headline of pure liberal boobbait: Coloring Inside the Lines: Will the Voting Rights Act stop Republicans from redistricting as they please? by Yale Law professor Heather Gerken.

Yet when this essay is read carefully, it makes clear that, no, the Voting Rights Act will likely help the Republican state legislatures gerrymander in their self-interest, by validating the creation ofabsurdly-contoured majority minority districts.

Gerken explains the mechanisms:

“Two VRA provisions matter for redistricting. The first is Section 5, which applies mainly to states in the Deep South. … Section 5 thus gives DoJ officials considerable sway over line drawing. During the 1990s, for instance, DoJused its behind-the-scenes power to push states to draw majority-minority districts. … The second provision that matters for redistricting is Section 2, which authorizesboth the DoJ and private parties to challenge districting plans that dilute the voting power of racial minorities.”

The legal theory is that white voters are so racist that the only way for minorities ever to win elections is to design some districts that aredisproportionately Democratic. But in practice the Voting Rights Act enables cynical Republican politicians to coop up large numbers of Democratic voters in “majority minority” districts.

Slate’s accompanying slide show of The Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts turns out to be, when you page through it, 80 percent Democratic, with seven of the 16 Democrats being minorities.

Gerken’s article was illustrated by a map of a ridiculousCongressional district, presumably to illustrate the kind ofgerrymandered atrocities the racist Republicans wouldconcoct if not restrained by the sainted VRA.

Hey, wait a minute, I thought to myself. I recognize that Congressional district! That’s the notorious Earmuff District whipped up under the VRA to connect the two Latino sectors of Cook County for the benefitof Luis Gutierrez! (He’s now the noisiest amnesty advocate in theHouse.)

Interestingly, the early 1990s powerbrokers behind thisridiculous shape were Mayor Richie Daley, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and … Rep. Denny Hastert, the future GOP Speaker of the House.

As the Chicago Reader explained back in 1997:

“In Illinois, the way the Fourth Congressional District was drawn hurt Democrats the most. … ‘This is an old game for Republicans,’ says Victor Crown. ‘They’ll form a silent coalition with the most radical black and Hispanic activists, and together they’ll create all-black or Hispanic districts that really screw the Democratic machine hacks. Sure it’s hypocritical, especially coming from conservatives who say they hate racial set-asides. But what do you expect? They’repoliticians, not saints.’”

[Let's Get Luis! By Ben Joravsky, March 27, 1997]

Gutierrez’s custom-made district is 75 percent Hispanic.

It’s a surprise, frankly. In general, Democrats are much craftier than Republicans about the implications of arcanerace-related rules, as the complex history of racialpreferences shows.

But it turns out that Republican politicians can be plenty Machiavellian when it comes to preserving their own jobs.

To understand the arithmetic of how Republicans use the VRA to gerrymander, consider a stylized example with round numbers:

Say you are a Republican apparatchik assigned by the Republicanmajority leaders in your state legislature to gerrymander four million people, half Republicans and half Democrats, into four districts. The smart play for the GOP is to divvy up the population something like this:

Democrats Republicans Normal Year
District 1 650,000 350,000 Dem
District 2 450,000 550,000 Rep
District 3 450,000 550,000 Rep
District 4 450,000 550,000 Rep

You make three districts 55 percent Republican and the other one 65 percent Democrat. Thus, in a normal 50-50 year, you win three out of four districts. Perhaps that’s one reason the GOP clung to control of the House in their mediocre election years of 1996, 1998, and 2000 even though they were being beaten by Clinton and Gore. Of course, the downside to this strategy is that in truly bad years, like 2006 or 2008, you’re in danger of losing all four districts.

How do Republicans justify such a naked partisan power play?

It’s easy: they’re fighting white racism!

See, white people are so bigoted that Republican leaders are morally mandated to pile up a big surplus of Democrats in District 1 to elect a minority representative—while the Republicans eke out narrow victories (but sill victories) in Districts 2, 3, and 4.

The rhetoric that Republican politicians use to rationalize this can be pretty funny. Four years ago, for example, the GOP-run Congress passed and President Bush signed the hilariously-named Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, And Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization And Amendments Act Of 2006.

(Why was Harriet Tubman left out?)

So Republican wonks think the VRA is good for GOPpoliticians. But why do white Democrats think it’s in theirinterests, too?

Because the Democrats are playing a long-term game. It’s much like on immigration, where Karl Rove apparently saw lax borders as a way to drive down wages and thus starve organized labor’s campaign funds, while Ted Kennedy saw immigration as a way to “elect a new people”. The VRA will cost Democrats a few seats over the nextdecade. But it channels ambitious young minority politicosinto the Democratic Party by holding out the hope of theirgetting a safe seat in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.

Indeed, the VRA has been terrific for the careers of low-level black and Hispanic politicians. There will be 42 blacks in the House of Representatives, or 9.6 percent of the 435 total.

Interestingly, two are Republicans elected this month in the South,which actually says a lot about the alleged continuing need for Section 5 of the VRA. Allen West will represent Boca Raton, Florida, which is 82 percent white. And Tim Scott, backed by Tea Party activists, won in a 75 percent white district headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina—the ideological heart of the Confederacy in the 1860s.

But this is the 2010s.

Nevertheless, forty are Democrats, generally of less than edifying quality: Maxine Waters, Alcee Hastings, Bobby Rush, and the like. (One reason the MainStream Media boosted Obama so shamelessly in 2007-08 is that, for all his shortcomings, he’s a much classier product than the typical black politician of the 21st Century.)

Similarly, the strident Gutierrez, a former cabdriver / radical activist, has been more effective at convincing gullible reporters that amnesty is the most important issue for Hispanic voters than he has been atconvincing Obama and other Washington insiders that his ceaseless threats of racial revenge for not prioritizing “comprehensive immigration reform” are credible.

If Gutierrez had to run in a district with substantial numbers of white and black voters, he wouldn’t (and couldn’t) be such an angry extremist on illegal immigration.

In contrast, with the retirement of Roland Burris, the notorious Governor Blagojevich‘s notorious appointee in Illinois, not one of the 100 U.S. Senators will be black.

And out of the 50 U.S. governors, only one is black: Massachusetts’Deval Patrick, who was stage-managed in 2006 by David Axelrod as a beta version of Obama.

Clearly, we need a new, improved Voting Rights Act to redraw racist state boundaries to make some states majority minority! (No!—on second thoughts, let’s not give them ideas.)

What seems to be happening here: the VRA helps impose a glass ceiling on black advancement to the Senate and governors’ mansions. It increases the number of majority minority districts, so the safe career path for an ambitious young minority politician is to be a “race man”. But that’s a bad basis for later appealing to an entire, mostly white, state.

Obama’s own career frustrations could serve as a case study for the misguidedness of the VRA. A “race man” by ambition, but not by nature or nurture, Obama launched his career on the South Side of Chicago by the almost comically inapt stratagem of publishing a 150,000-word meditation on his story of race and inheritance. Nobody outside of Hyde Park read it. Fortunately for Obama, he had a less literary Plan B: having all his black opponents in the 1996 state senate election disqualified.

In the 2000 House primary, Obama finally ran in his first competitive election. Former Black Panther Bobby Rush mocked him for not being black enough. Obama managed to carry the district’s Irish neighborhoods, but he was humiliated by black voters. This crushing of his dream from his father—to be black enough to be a black leader—drove Obama into a long depression, rather like what he seems to be going through now.

But after about a year, he snapped out of it. He then gerrymandered his own state senate district to contain more whites—a rare choice for a black elected official. And then he set his sights on winning a statewide (i.e., mostly white) election.

In short, the current VRA-driven majority minority redistricting system nurtures very few Obamas. And that’s not good for the Democrats, who are in danger of coming to be seen over the decades as the Black Party. In the new House, blacks will make up over 20 percent of all Democrats. And most of them aren’t good advertisements for the Democratic Party outside their own contrived districts.

A final thought: the VRA’s tendency to foster political segregation isn’t good for, you know, the country….

The funny thing is that Obama is smart enough and cold-blooded enough to grasp the advantages to himself, his party, and his country of calling for reforming the VRA on colorblind grounds to reflect the post-racist realities of the 21st Century.

But nobody in the political class will ever even ask him about it.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative.

His website features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Voting Rights 
🔊 Listen RSS

“[S]ome Congressmen probably would vote for a declaration of war against Canada if it were contained in a bill with the words ‘civil rights’ in its title.” ['Civil Rights' That Can Lead to Civil War, By Thomas Sowell, New York Daily News, April 24, 1990), p. 30, quoted in Paved With Good Intentions, p. 151]

President Bush’s speech to the NAACP on Thursday was strikingly lacking in any sort of Sister Souljah moment“—chiding that venerable but now notoriously corrupt and ineffectual black organization for even one of its numerous faults.

Instead, Bush made the climax of his speech a demand that the Senate pass a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act without amendment.

The Senate instantly complied by a vote of 98-0 (following the House’s passage by the margin of 390-33).

As a substantive bill, the VRA extension was notable for insisting that foreign language ballots be provided to voters who need them.

Yet, to become a U.S. citizen, immigrants are legally required to prove that they are literate in English. So the need for a non-English ballot would appear to be prima facie proof that an immigrant either fraudulently became a citizen or that he is a noncitizen attempting to vote fraudulently. [ Note: Jack Kemp claims that Republicans who oppose the VRA are Know-Nothings.

He would. He also claims that 70 percent of the non-English speakingvoters are born in the US, which, if it's true, is an indictment of Kemp's Open Borders policy over the last twenty years.]

But President Bush and the solons of the Senate aren’t concerned about mere logic when they can revel in one of the more popularrituals of 21st century political theatre: pretending that Southern white racism is omnipresent, a pervasive threat to blacks’ right to vote.

Apparently, the only thing that can divert this tidal wave of Southern white bigotry from washing away the gains of the 1960s is a unanimous vote of the Senate, including all the Southern white Senators, in favor of the new VRA.

This 25-year VRA extension , which President Bush swore to the NAACP that he would sign, requires nine states, seven of them Southern, to get the Justice Department’s approval for any change in voting rules to make sure that “the change did not have adiscriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect.”

Thus, the mark of Cain will officially be upon the South into the 2030s for evils that disappeared by the 1970s.

In reality, as Thomas Sowell pointed out back in the pre-Internet days, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was the most quickly successful of the civil rights era landmarks.

The more famous 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decisiontheoretically outlawing school segregation remained almost a dead letter until the Nixon administration forced the desegregation ofSouthern schools in 1969. The ruling’s initial impact was merely to radicalize Southern white sentiment in favor of “massive resistance.” And, indeed, even today, when de jure segregation is officially excoriated, de facto segregation remains standard practice: most white parents make costly efforts to shield their children from having to attend schools that are heavily black.

In contrast, Sowell argued, the denial of the vote to Southern blacks was an obvious violation of the 15th Amendment, and it wasn’t as much of an emotional hot button for the public since it involved the fates of politicians, not their own children. Soon after Congress finally passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, rabble-rousing white Southern politicians either saw their careers come to a quick end now that everyone could vote, or, like George Wallace, they changed their tune. So, there was no more organized resistance to civil rights.

In other words, the effectiveness of the initial Voting Rights Act in the 1965-1969 era was because, once it dismantled the various subterfuges that kept Southern blacks from voting, blacks possessed enough political power to make black voting rights self-enforcing.

And more than self-enforcing—witness ceremonies like last week’s 98-0 Senate vote.

But there’s another point about the VRA. Contrary to explicit assurance given when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed (just like, not coincidentally, the assurance given when the 1965 Immigration Act was passed), the legislation has spawned pervasive “Affirmative Action”, a.k.a. quotas. The fight against these quotas has only justbegun. In that fight, we have much to learn from the complex enforcement mechanisms built into the original VRA.

We’re coming up on the tenth anniversary of California voters’ approval of Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action 1996 initiative authored by Glynn Custred and Tom Wood, and chaired by WardConnerly.

Like Brown, Prop. 209 was greeted by massive resistance by the entrenched California establishment. Also like Brown, but unlike the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Prop. 209 didn’t alter who held political power, so the powers-that-be that had erected all the racial quotas in the first place continued to, well, Be. Not surprisingly, these powers subsequently attempted multiple end runs around the clear language of the law.

For example, as La Griffe du Lion, the Zorro of statisticians, pointed out in his 2000 essay “The Death of Meritocracy, the first UCLA medical school class admitted under Prop. 209 was blatantly indefiance of the new state constitutional amendment.

Only 3.0 percent of white and Asian applicants were admitted versus 10.4 percent of blacks and Hispanics, even though the “underrepresented minority” admittees had much lower grades and test scores.

Due to the tenacity of a few UC Regents such as Connerly and John Moores, and the pro bono lawsuits filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, progress has been made since then in getting the University of California to follow the law.

Still, the creativity of the diversicrats at evading the will of the peopleremains remarkable.

Early in this decade, for instance, the UC colleges adopted “comprehensive review” of applicants, authorizing them to hand out admission not just for grades and test scores, but also for “overcoming adversity”—including having been shot! (Hint: Victims of hunting accidents need not apply.)

The problem is that in California, the anti-quota good guys are forced to fight back retail, while the bad guys are continuing to discriminate wholesale.

To get around the identical problem, in 1966, the Supreme Court upheld Section 5 of the original VRA, which mandated Justice Department oversight of the any changes in the law, saying:

“Congress had found that case-by-case litigation wasinadequate to combat wide-spread and persistentdiscrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome theobstructionist tactics invariably encountered in theselawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematicresistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress mightwell decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.” [SOUTHCAROLINA v. KATZENBACH 383 U.S. 301 (1966)]

Exactly the same logic applies to fighting racial discrimination against whites and Asians today.

We can’t afford anymore to pass laws that merely declare racial quotas illegal. We must provide detailed oversight processes to fight the inevitable massive resistance from bureaucrats.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Voting Rights 
🔊 Listen RSS

“President Bush asked Congress Thursday to renew portions of a landmark voting rights act as he signed a measure championed by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) to erect a statue of civil rights icon Rosa Parks in the Capitol. Jackson and his namesake father have been campaigning for months to extend and strengthen key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act due to expire in 2007.” Rosa Parks statue to stand in Capitol (December 2, 2005 By Lynn Sweet Chicago Sun-Times

Here we go again.

The voting rights of American citizens are being trampled. But you can be sure that the next version of the hallowed Voting Rights Act will only address pseudo-problems.

It wasn’t always this way. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was the most successful of the famous civil rights enactments of the 1960s. It dealt with a genuine issue—the systematic finagling by the ruling Democratic Party in Southern states to keep most black citizens from voting—and solved it almost immediately.

As soon as blacks had the vote, they were well equipped to protect that right. The number of black voters and officeholders shot upwards. White Southern politicians, such as George Wallace, responded to the now-level electoral playing field by dropping anti-black demagoguery.

The calm, prosperous modern South soon emerged, with the black minority dominating the Democratic Party and most of the white majority moving into its natural home in the Republican Party. Under this fair system, conservatives do well in the South.

Today, when you hear about blacks having problems at the election booth, as many did in trying to cast valid ballots in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, they are almost always self-inflicted.

The 2000 Presidential election in Florida has become encrusted in myths (“Blacks were disenfranchised!”) because what really happened stems directly from the media’s Great Unmentionable: thewhite-black IQ gap.

In Florida, more Gore supporters showed up to vote than Bush supporters. But as so often happens, the Democrats botched up their ballots, rendering them invalid, at a higher rate than the Republicans. Most unmentionably, Gore’s biggest problem was that blacks, who voted for him by at least a 10-1 margins, were much more likely to make a hash of their ballots than were whites, who tended to support Bush.

La Griffe du Lion‘s analysis is conclusive, but this New York Timesarticle at least hints at the truth:

Democrats Rue Ballot Foul-Up In A 2nd County

“JACKSONVILLE, Fla., Nov. 16 [2000] — … But the results of Duval County’s vote left Democrats here shaking their heads. More than 26,000 ballots were invalidated, the vast majority because they contained votes for more than one presidential candidate. Nearly 9,000 of the votes were thrown out in the predominantly African-Americancommunities around Jacksonville, where Mr. Gore scored 10-to-1 ratios of victory, according to an analysis of the vote by the New York Times

“Local election officials attributed the outcome to a ballot that had the name of presidential candidates on two pages, which they said many voters found confusing. Many voters, they said, voted once on each page. The election officials said they would not use such a ballot in the future.

“Rodney G. Gregory, a lawyer for the Democrats in Duval County, said the party shared the blame for the confusion. Mr. Gregory said Democratic Party workers instructed voters, many persuaded to go to the polls for the first time, to cast ballots in every race and ‘be sure to punch a hole on every page.’

“’The get-out-the vote folks messed it up,’ Mr. Gregory said ruefully.

If Mr. Gregory’s assessment is correct, and thousands of Gore supporters were inadvertently misled into invalidating their ballots, this county alone would have been enough to give Mr. Gore the electoral votes of Florida, and thus the White House.

Yet the Voting Rights Law still assumes that Southern whites are guilty unless proven innocent. Suzanne Gamboa of the Washington Postreported in a December 3 2005 story about the current brouhaha over the Republican redistricting of Texas that:

“The House Democratic leader wants an independent inquiry into the Justice Department’s decision to approve a Texas redistricting plan that staff lawyers concluded diluted minority voting rights… Because of historic discrimination against minority voters, Texas is required under provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to getJustice Department approval for any voting changes toensure they don’t undercut minority voting.”

My emphasis! That “discrimination” is “historic” all right—1965 was 40 years ago! [ note: Abigail Thernstrom and Edward Blum argue that Texas never needed the VRA, anyway. In 1937 one-sixth of the registered voters in Dallas were African-American.]

You’ll notice that the law doesn’t require fairness to all races, just to nonwhites. Over time, the inevitable net effect of that bias will be to push voting systems in the direction of unfairly favoring nonwhites.

Imagine trying to drive your car down the highway with your steering wheel rigged so you can’t nudge it to the right but can nudge it to the left. Eventually, you’ll end up in the ditch on the left.

Yet the GOP has been a big supporter of recent Voting Rights Acts. They favor drawing district lines that favor the election of minorities.

Why? Because concentrating anti-Republican minorities into a few majority-minority House and legislative districts in each state also helps create a lot of safe Republican districts (for now).

The downside: minority politicians get radicalized. This has ominous consequence for the long-term cohesiveness of America.

Due to this gerrymandering to create black districts, a large fraction of black politicians now run in black-majority districts. They learn to harvest votes by pandering only to black resentments of whites. This is terrible preparation for later running for statewide office, where they have to avoid frightening whites to win.

Which accounts for their miserable statewide performances. Although 39 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives are black, of the 150 U.S. Senators and state governors, only one is black (thecafé-au-lait Barack Obama, whose mother is white, late father, who abandoned the family when he was two, Kenyan, and whose upbringing was more Indonesian than African-American.)

Less widely-noted: this system funnels ambitious Hispanics into the Democratic Party. Nationwide, 92 percent of all Latino elected officials who ran under a partisan label are Democrats, in large part because Hispanics are clumped together in “majority-minority” districts. For example, in California, Hispanics hold 29 of the 120 seats in the two houses of the legislature, and 27 of the 29 are Democrats.

What America needs instead of a same-old-same-old Voting Rights Act that ignores non-minority rights is comprehensive reform to ensure the rights of all citizens.

The worst electoral problem:

With the computer technology available today, state legislators are able to gerrymander districts boundaries to protect incumbents, both themselves and House members, in ways beyond the fondest dreams of old time political bosses. For example, due to gerrymandering, noincumbent legislator in California lost in 2004—even the ones targeted by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, then at the peak of his popularity.

“Democracy is supposed to be about people choosing their representatives, not representatives choosing their people,”comments gerrymandering critic Daniel D. Polsby, associate dean of the George Mason University law school. (He explains how to replacegerrymandering with an equable system based on geographically-compact districts here.)

In the past, with districts less scientifically drawn, representatives felt the need to be on the right side of public opinion. Today, however, most incumbents assured of endless re-elections—unless the public’s passions are extremely stirred up.

So our representatives have become cowardly and don’t want to take a stand on controversial issues. That’s a major reason why Congress hasn’t carried out its Constitutional duty to declare war since the 1940s—the kind of crucial vote, incumbents worry, for which theelectorate might hold them responsible. It’s safer from a career standpoint to simply delegate decisions about war or peace to the President.

Today, the vast majority of House races are effectively decided when district boundaries are redrawn following each decennial Census. Only the small fraction of the electorate’s votes that are in swing districts can really make a difference in House elections.

Another problem:

In most states, House and legislative districts are drawn up to equalizenot the number of citizens eligible to vote, but the number of residents—including both illegal and legal aliens, and their children.

This gives Hispanic Democrats a huge advantage. Their ethnic group is heavily immigrant, and ineligible to vote. But their presence in Hispanic-dominated areas translates into safe seats.

That’s why Democrat Latinos make up 23 percent of the entireCalifornia legislature even though Democratic-voting Hispanics only made up about 12 percent of the California electorate in 2004.

For example, in the 2002 midterm election in Southern California’sbeachfront Congressional District 46 (17 percent Hispanic), 173,000 voters participated in the election of immigration-restrictionist Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacher. Next door in gritty Orange County’s gritty District 47 (65 percent Hispanic), prominentDemocratic fundraiser Loretta Sanchez triumphed despite just 68,000 votes being cast.

Overall, the eight California congressional elections won by Latinosaveraged only 80,000 ballots split among all the hopefuls. In the other 45 races, a mean of 143,000 voters went to the polls.

This meant that the average voter in a district that elected a Latino had a 78 percent greater say in choosing a House member than voters in the rest of the state.

That’s not fair.

Rotten boroughs aren’t Constitutional, according to the highest court to consider the issue. In the majority opinion of the 1998 7th Circuit federal case Barnett vs. City of Chicago, famed Judge Richard J. Posner ruled:

“We think that citizen voting-age population is the basis for determining equality of voting power that best comports with the policy of the (Voting Rights) statute. … The dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted ifnon-citizens are allowed to vote either directly or by the conferral of additional voting power on citizens believed to have a community of interest with the non-citizens.”

It’s time for a Voting Right Act that guarantees the equal treatment ofall American citizens—and doesn’t just benefit minorities and incumbents of all parties.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Voting Rights 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?