The Supreme Court limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act on Monday, a decision that could make it harder for some minority candidates to win elections

In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that a portion of the law aimed at helping minorities elect their preferred candidates only applies in districts where minorities make up more than half the population.

The decision could make it more difficult for Democrats, particularly in the South and Southwest, to draw electoral boundaries friendly to black or Hispanic candidates following the 2010 Census.

With the court’s conservatives in the majority, the court ruled that North Carolina erred when trying to preserve the influence of African-American voters even though they made up just 39 percent of the population in a state legislative district.

While not a majority, the black voters were numerous enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections, the state argued in urging the court to extend the civil rights law’s provision to the district. Read More

What you think of The Supreme Court’s ruling?


6 comments on “The Supreme Court limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act on Monday, a decision that could make it harder for some minority candidates to win elections

  1. Sounds like a step in the right direction, but I’d have to know more about it. In principle, the Voting Rights Act was a good thing, but racial gerrymandering stinks, period.

  2. A lesson I learned while helping a black candidate get elected in Alabama: White voters will vote for a black candidate, but they want to see “people who look like them” supporting that candidate first. We’ve come that far from the paranoid racism of the ’60s and earlier. There is no compelling case for majority-minority districts, and a good case can be made that they actually dilute the overall effect of minority voters.

  3. This American does not see voting for a person for their stand on issues as paranoid racism! But to vote for them cause they are black or white could be call paranoid racism as you call it alarob! Obama is a big spending take from the haves and give to the have nots and raise taxes on every American from the poor to the rich and worst of all lied to the American people from the start of the campaign and so it was his stand on the issues that I would not vote for him. His actions has now proved me to be right…I used Obama to show what a poor example he sets for the blacks! So Obama has none more harm to the blacks than anyone I know of in recent history!

  4. You misunderstood me. The point is that few voters EXCLUDE a candidate on the basis of race. But a black candidate with no visible white supporters is likely to get few white votes. The rest of your comment strikes me as incoherent and marred by typos. (“Obama has none more harm”?)

  5. BTW if you look more closely at my first comment, you’ll see that I was in agreement with your main points.

  6. I don’t need a teacher! As you say black candidates will get less white votes, but then again Obama gets 95% of the blacks voting for him which leads to make me think they voted for him because of color not race as he is as much if not more white than black race. So could we say that the blacks was voting racist? They sure didn’t vote on just issues.

Comments are closed.