"IN THE HEAT OF THE (VOTING) RIGHTS" STARRING THE SUPREME COURT.

It’s been a while since men in long robes came to the aid of a struggling South. Who would have thought that - in 2013 - the Supreme Court would take on that role? That is, the Supreme Court as a group.

On Tuesday, June 25, The Supreme Court gutted the Voting Right Act of 1965, allowing nine states, mostly Southern, to change their election laws without federal approval. The vote was 5-4, splitting along idealogical lines with the conservative wing of the Court prevailing. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. claims, “Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

         The true and only purpose for invalidating the Voting Rights of 1965 is to allow discrimination against minority voters. Any doubt was removed two hours after the decision was made public when the State of Texas announced it would immediately commence both redistricting – that is, gerrymandering - and a strict voter I.D. program. Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, Texas will have a wall around the ballot box as well as along the border with Mexico.

Not only is the Court’s attempt at justifying discrimination a lie, it’s not even a good lie. Witness the quote above. What Chief Justice Roberts says is that a law that’s outlived its usefulness is worse than voter discrimination. Compare it with an exactly parallel construction used by schoolgirls around the world: “She’s sweet, but she’s slept with the whole football team.” Even if it was a good lie, it would have been contradicted the very next day when Chief Justice Roberts voted against striking down the Defense of Marriage Act – a law clearly out of touch with the current conditions in a changing country.

         What are those current conditions, anyway? Where is the evidence that voter discrimination no longer exists in the South? Opponents of the voting rights law are quick to point out the abundance of black officials at every level of government - including President Obama. All of whom must have been elected by black people. What else could explain it? A white person wouldn’t vote for a black candidate, would they?

         By working hand-in-hand with the kind of dressed-up Snopeses that clutter Southern legislatures, the Supreme Court is helping renew the conditions that made the Voting Rights Act necessary in the first place. They might as well erect a statue to Robert Shelton on The Mall, right next to the one of Martin Luther King Jr. Who is Robert Shelton? He was Imperial Wizard back in the days before Harry Potter, when the title inspired more shock than awe.