Eugene Robinson: Supreme Court can’t stop demographics

[cal04]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/06/25/supreme-court-cant-stop-demographics/?hpid=z2

(snip)
The court is, of course, right in one observation: These days, attempts to disenfranchise African Americans and other minorities are not limited to the South. Burdensome voter ID laws and other restrictions are being imposed in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Arizona. And yes, there are scads of black elected officials in Mississippi.

But most violations of the Voting Rights Act still take place in the states of the old Confederacy. The solution should have been to expand the map of jurisdictions required to seek pre-clearance from the federal government for changes in election laws — rather than erase the map altogether.

I could not be more pessimistic about the prospect that Congress will come up with a new formula and a new map.The rest of the act remains in effect, but we may have to live with the fact that now it will be more difficult to enforce.

But I can’t help but be optimistic in the long term. In last year’s presidential election, black turnout was actually higher than white turnout. Latinos and Asian-Americans, too, continue their rise as powerful voting blocs. The ascendancy of previously underrepresented minorities as full participants in U.S. democracy is a secular trend, and no five men in robes can hold it back.

[alsame]

1. While I appreciate his optimism,

turnout won't matter if they are denied the right to vote once they get to the polls.

[CTyankee]

4. what progressives must do is organize not just for change thru our congresspersons but

also in local groups to enable people to get to the polls, to get whatever documentation they might need, etc....effectively neutralizing all of the effects of the onerous state laws suppressing the vote. We must all do it. This is OUR democracy and we have to fight for it...

[alsame]

5. I completely agree, we need regional

ACORN type groups to ensure that people have what they need.

[KamaAina]

2. No, but they can sure as hell slow it down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. It is because of demographics they took the decision they took

I might not fully agree with it..and it will do damage, but they left a way in for section four to come back...Congress. Bueler.

[noiretextatique]

7. mother jones is arguing that the decision is based on flawed data

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-decision

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Will definitely need to read it once I finish the actual decision

It's not that bad as far as legalese goes. If Roberts wrote it he has a clear writing style.

(Take my word, I have read some real dogs)

[Orsino]

6. Will the Democratic Party dare to bet on those demographics?

Or will we hide behind Citizens United?

[carolinayellowdog]

9. Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi are ripe for a shift to Democratic majorities

Robinson is right that the longterm demographics are against Republicans even if they can temporarily cut minority turnout. But how much damage will the Republicans do in the meantime?