To the Editor:
Re “Conservative Justices Hinged Vote on Progress on Racism,” by Adam Liptak (news analysis, May 1), and “The Justices Gutted the Voting Rights Act” (editorial, May 1):
Law students often hear this piece of wisdom attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: The United States has courts of law, not courts of justice. This week, when the Supreme Court limited the reach of the momentous Voting Rights Act of 1965, the principle was again demonstrated.
History will decide whether the court was correct in holding that a controversial redistricting plan in Louisiana was impermissible racial gerrymandering. For now, the decision will likely accelerate the states’ redistricting wars.
In 2019, the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not decide partisan gerrymandering cases. The court once prohibited racial gerrymandering, but this week’s decision suggested that highly partisan redistricting will be permitted in the absence of overwhelming evidence of intentional racial discrimination. Civil rights advocates believe that bar is too high.
Idealistic as a college student, Justice Holmes dropped out to enlist in the Union army at the beginning of the Civil War. After being wounded three times in combat, he was mustered out after three years as a cleareyed realist.
Justice Holmes died decades before passage of the Voting Rights Act, and he might have agreed with the court’s statement of the law. However, that would not have been justice.
Steven S. Berizzi Norwalk, Conn. The writer is an emeritus professor of history and political science at Connecticut State Community College, Norwalk.
To the Editor:
Thank you for Adam Liptak’s fine but profoundly sad and frightening news analysis about the most recent Supreme Court assault on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We have an example here of absurdly faulty logic from what is supposed to be our most esteemed and experienced judge-scholars of law.
Shall we loosen our laws on violent crime when statistics show that the rate of violent crime has gone down? Forget about seatbelts when the deadly auto accident rate falls? I wonder exactly what the Supreme Court majority thinks laws are for and who should discuss, write and pass them?
Maybe these justices believe President Trump’s claims of America’s greatness, and that with conservatives controlling every branch of government, we have approached moral perfection. With all of America following our dear leader and his Supreme Court, what’s the point of that pesky Congress, anyway?
If President Trump’s ratings continue to head downward, I await martial law and suspension of elections come November.
Rebecca F. Samawicz Ocean City, Md.
To the Editor:
OK, now I get it: It’s illegal to use gerrymandering to redress deliberate disenfranchisement of Black voters caused by purposeful redistricting, because it uses race as the basis for redrawing the maps, but it’s not illegal to re-gerrymander those maps to restore their original purpose — which also used race as the basis of redistricting, but in the opposite direction.
The hypocrisy of the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is breathtaking.
David Anderson Altadena, Calif.
To the Editor:
The Supreme Court previously declared partisan gerrymandering, in which politicians pick their voters rather than the other way around, is OK. Now the justices have ruled that racial gerrymandering to provide balance in minority representation for voting rights must be dismantled. Put simply, you can’t draw a district that gives Black voters voting power, but you can draw a district that takes their power away.
When you view this in combination with the Trump administration’s official hostility to diversity, equity and inclusion, and its misuse of civil rights laws — to supposedly reverse discriminate against white people — you have to ask, What’s next? The return or Jim Crow and separate drinking fountains?
David Pederson Tucson, Ariz.
To the Editor:
Now that the Supreme Court has effectively eliminated race as a factor in the drawing of electoral maps, perhaps the court could turn its attention to an issue arguably more germane to the future of our system of government: political gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering has been with us since the nation’s founding, typically occurring every decade after the census and reapportionment. However, in today’s highly polarized political climate, it has intensified in both frequency (now mid-cycle) and scale, and has become increasingly dangerous to the functioning of our system of government.
Since the biggest threat to incumbents in heavily gerrymandered districts comes from primary challengers within the same party rather than from the opposing party in a general election, such districts tend to increase political polarization. And since incumbents in such districts generally don’t have to worry about losing, there is less need to be responsive to constituents, particularly those of the opposing party.
Political extremism and the resulting lack of compromise, aided by political gerrymandering, have become an existential threat to our country. The court would be doing all Americans a favor if it were to find that the drawing of electoral maps for partisan advantage is unconstitutional as well.
Henry Von Kohorn Princeton, N.J.
To the Editor:
Chief Justice John Roberts often laments that respect for the Supreme Court has eroded. This ruling, in its disregard of established precedent — including precedent set by this very court — demonstrates clearly that the court does not deserve respect.
Rather than continuing his laments, perhaps Chief Justice Roberts should instead focus on making the court worthy of respect. Failing that, people will continue to see the court as the tool of partisan hacks that it has become.
Michael T. Ferro Endwell, N.Y.
Shifts in Drug Policy
To the Editor:
Re “Justice Dept. Eases Limits on Marijuana as Medicine” (news article, April 24) and “Trump Signs Executive Order to Relax Limits on Psychedelic Drugs” (news article, April 20):
The Justice Department’s move to ease restrictions on medical marijuana is an important policy shift, and the administration’s separate push to speed research on psychedelic drugs suggests a broader rethinking of federal drug policy. But these changes should not be confused with a declaration that such substances are harmless.
A sensible drug policy should move away from punishment and toward health and wellness, with more emphasis on prevention, treatment and recovery. That shift is welcome, but it must be grounded in evidence and cleareyed about the risks of cannabis and other drugs, especially for young people and those vulnerable to dependence.
At Odyssey House, we see how cannabis use can become part of a broader behavioral health struggle. Public health is best served not by replacing one form of overstatement with another, but by being honest about both the potential benefits and the proven harms.
Peter Provet New York The writer is the president and chief executive of Odyssey House.
The post The Supreme Court Steps Backward on Voting and Race appeared first on New York Times.
