. . . the way the Heritage Foundation's Hans A. von Spakovsky frames the debate about Section 5 pre clearance in the Shelby County v. Holder debate case currently before the Supreme Court, and the way Linda Greenhouse frames it on the New York Times op-ed page.
Greenhouse is perfectly happy that "later Supreme Court interpretation [of the limitations placed on the power of the federal Congress] were understood to apply to the states as well."
von Spakovsky reminds us that the congressional districts with the greatest disparity between white and black voters where whites are the majority are found in states like Massachusetts and Washington, whereas the opposite maximum disparity is found in - Mississippi. In other words, we've come a long way from the set of circumstances of 1965, when the Voting Rights Act became law.
The central issue here is whether race should be a factor in establishing congressional districts. The other main issue, pretty much equally crucial, is whether states should retain the power to take a look around at their own demographic situations and perform any tweaking of perceived unequal opportunities on their own, or whether that should fall under the federal purview.
Then there's the glaring cultural question: Is the American South of 2013 a repository of bigotry and social ossification, as the snoots and pointy-heads would have us believe?
Or are individual people and families just moving around the country according to their own priorities, settling in particular locales because they like the climate or the economic opportunities or whatever?
In other words, it gets harder for the FHers to guilt-trip America as factors having nothing to do with unsavory attitudes account for societal discrepancies of a racial nature.
People are just going where they want to go, doing what they want to do, whoever they are. You know, like Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment