The Supreme Court recently ruled against a race-based congressional district in Louisiana. It was developed under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) in order to give Black voters a chance to elect a candidate of their choice. 1965 was the same year that we opened our borders via Hart-Celler. I’m curious to know how the laws were ever supposed to work together. It seems that the VRA envisioned a majority-minority split between just two groups: white and Black. After Hart-Celler, though, a state could easily have the following:
- a white minority (under 50%)
- an Asian-American minority (we’re informed that all varieties of Asians, including Indians and Samoans, can be lumped together under AANHPI, Asian American and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islander) that wants to elect a fellow Asian-American, such as the noble Ted Lieu (proof that not everyone from Taiwan believes in a government that spends only 18% of GDP, including state/local)
- a Black minority that wants to elect someone like Kamala Harris
- a Hispanic minority that wants to elect someone Hispanic
- an Arab minority that wants to elect a fellow Muslim Arab (BBC: “This month, the Midwestern city of 28,000 has reached a milestone. Hamtramck has elected an all-Muslim City Council and a Muslim mayor, becoming the first in the US to have a Muslim-American government. Once faced with discrimination, Muslim residents have become integral to this multicultural city, and now make up more than half its population.”)
If the VRA isn’t specifically limited to one racial group, which it doesn’t seem to be, who decides which of the above minorities will get its own district and which will see its votes diluted and its dreams denied?
Loosely related, in the Department of Diversity is Our Strength:
Patchwork of inconsistent laws is an old news in America.. America has (or had?) been working because it has (or had?) been following God’s rules. Think that the enemies of US figured the easiest way to defeat US is to pitch US against God of Hebrew Bible.