"The Voting Rights Act was not a gift or a concession. It was a constraint imposed on a country that had proven, over a century, that it would not protect Black citizens' right to vote without one."
"This, Mr Chairman, is perhaps the Negro's temporary farewell to the American Congress, he said, but let me say, phoenix-like, he will rise up some day and come again."
"The ruling rests on a single premise: that America has changed enough that these protections are no longer necessary."
The Supreme Court ruling indicates a belief that the U.S. has changed sufficiently to render the Voting Rights Act's protections unnecessary. Historical context reveals that the Act was a response to systemic disenfranchisement of Black citizens. George H. White's farewell speech in 1901 foreshadowed the ongoing struggle for voting rights. The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais does not formally strike down Section 2 of the Act but undermines its effectiveness. The decision reflects a dangerous assumption that social progress has eliminated the need for such protections.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]