Jonathan P. Baird

In understanding what makes Donald Trump and his MAGA movement unique, I would argue it is both their incitement to violence and their dehumanization of opponents. That rhetoric echoes fascist tradition that sees violence as necessary and a virtue. Fascists build their community by identifying and vilifying those seen as enemies.

Trump’s speeches and his social media tweets are an effort to change and normalize the perception of violence among his followers. He is trying to remove hesitation about resorting to its use. Part of his effort is seeing those who oppose him as sub-human. Trump is attempting to train his followers to see violence as positive.

The examples to cite are numerous but I would begin with his recent watershed remarks about vermin and immigrants poisoning the nations’s blood. This is another step down the dehumanization highway. That Hitler-type language reverberates back to 1930’s-1940’s fascism. It is a recognizable moment that should cause everyone pause. Talking about any people like that is sick and morally indefensible.

For those who think I am exaggerating, Trump’s words speak for themselves. Remember January 6:

“If you don’t fight like hell, you won’t have a country any more.”

Trump has called for the execution of General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has urged police to shoot shoplifters. He has mocked the vicious assault on Nancy Pelosi’s 82-year old husband that fractured his skull. He had previously called for shooting illegal border crossers in the legs. Trump and his minions matter of factly discuss deporting millions without due process and putting huge numbers of immigrants in vast detention camps in south Texas.

Part of the dehumanization is the name-calling and vitriolic attacks on enemies. Trump calls Jack Smith “deranged” and “a psycho who looks like a crackhead”. He labels New York Attorney General Letitia James “a monster” and “a racist”. He says the judge in his New York civil fraud trial, Judge Arthur Engoron, is “deranged” and should be disbarred and criminally prosecuted.

Possibly these statements are in response to the pressure he is currently under but the pattern of dehumanization is long-standing. In his January 2, 2021 conference call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger where he wanted 11780 votes found, Trump mentioned Ruby Freeman, a black election worker, 18 times. He repeatedly slandered Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, accusing them of election crimes. Trump called Freeman “a professional vote scammer and hustler”.

Trump’s false accusations, along with Rudy Giuliani’s, terrorized the two women and turned their world upside down. Following Trump’s cue, Republican activists threatened the womens’ lives, forced Freeman to flee her home, close her business and go into hiding. The two women received threatening emails, letters and social media attacks filled with violent and racist content. In her testimony to the January 6 Committee, Freeman described the type of threats received:

“Kill yourself now so we can save ammo” read one message, Another read:

“I hope the Federal government hangs you and your daughter from the Capitol dome you treasonous piece of shit! I pray that I will be sitting close enough to hear your necks snap.”

I see the attacks on Ruby Freeman and her daughter as the prototype of the MAGA modus operandi. With Trump’s words, he unleashes the attack dogs. Then he chooses to ignore the inevitably horrible consequences of his remarks.

Since Trump emerged in 2015-2016, dozens of his unhinged supporters have carried out acts of violence. Think Cesar Sayoc. More recently, I think of the Colorado Supreme Court justices who are now receiving a barrage of death threats because of their opinion on the 14th amendment case barring Trump from being on the Colorado ballot. Just to give a flavor of the messages received:

“All fucking robed rats must fucking hang.”

“This ends when we kill these fuckers.”

This is no different than the treatment meted out to other judges and prosecutors who have engaged Trump-involved cases. As John Miller of CNN has said, Trump has been pouring gasoline on the fire. His threats against judges have created a much less secure judiciary. This ties into Trump’s more general responsibility for increased hate crimes. Words have an effect. As the author of The Undertow, Jeff Sharlet, has observed, blood and gore play a big role in Trump speeches at his rallies.

After January 6, 2021, Sen. Mitt Romney had to spend $5000 a day for security for his family. Liz Cheney said there were members of Congress who told her they were afraid for their own security. They voted against impeaching Trump out of fear of their own lives. This is the way fear and intimidation work to undermine democracy.

Many election workers have quit because of the MAGA threats. After the 2020 election, Reuters documented more than 900 threatening and hostile messages to election administrators and staff in 17 states. Almost all the threats were related to Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election. It is no wonder so many election workers have quit because of the perceived danger.

Every fascist movement is different and has its own national characteristics. Trump is focused on revenge because he cannot stand being a loser. He talks about putting Joe Biden in jail along with others who have crossed him like Bill Barr, John Bolton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As his former White House Chief of Staff, Gen. John Kelly has said Trump has nothing but contempt for democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Fascists came to power in Italy by killing off and intimidating members of the Socialist Party which was the largest opposition party. Between 1919-1922, the fascists in Italy killed thousands. A similar process occurred in Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. In 1933, the Nazis consolidated his power by murdering leftists, social democrats and Jews.

Whatever happens in the 2024 election, we can be certain that Trump will not accept the result unless he wins. Trump is running to stay out of jail. What level of MAGA violence will come into play is a good question but based on history it is unrealistic to expect him to accept an unfavorable result peacefully.

I cannot help but think about Maya Angelou’s famous quote: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” No one can predict the future but all who care about keeping democracy should be very worried.

Back in November the U.S. Supreme Court announced a new Code of Conduct. The announcement came in response to mounting criticism of the unethical behavior of certain justices, particularly Clarence Thomas. His accumulation of expensive unreported gifts from billionaire patrons had to be an embarrassment to all the other justices.

The Supreme Court’s announcement momentarily raised expectations but it turned out the new Code of Conduct was a triumph of form over substance. The code contained no enforcement mechanism. There is no way for anyone to invoke a code violation. The code offers only the appearance of accountability.

The ethical issues that are upcoming are anything but inconsequential and they locate Justice Thomas at the center of controversy. At issue is whether he should recuse from January 6-related cases. It appears that there will be three January 6-related cases on the High Court’s docket and there may be more.

There is the matter of Trump’s claimed immunity from prosecution as a former President. Then there is the question of whether he is disqualified from running for President because of the 14th Amendment prohibition the bars officials who have engaged in insurrection from running for office. Finally there is the case of Fischer v United States, where a man charged with offenses related to the January 6 assault on the Capitol asks the Court to dismiss the charge he obstructed an official proceeding.

Ethical issues are raised in all three cases because of the January 6 role of Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas. Ms. Thomas was an active participant and a key behind-the-scenes player in the insurrection. She attended the January 6 Stop the Steal rally although she did not enter inside the Capitol after things got out of hand. She told the January 6 Committee that she still believed the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

After the election, Ms. Thomas texted Mark Meadows, Trump’s Chief of Staff, that he should contest the election result, accusing Biden and the Democrats of “attempting the greatest heist of our History”. On the morning of January 6, she wrote her Facebook followers, “Love MAGA people” and “God bless each of you standing up or praying”. Ms. Thomas had texted:

“Biden crime family and ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship managers, fake stream media reporters etc) are being arrested and detained for ballot fraud right now and over coming days and will be living in barge off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”

The New York Times reported Ms. Thomas played a peacemaking role between feuding factions of January 6 rally organizers. She emailed state legislators in Arizona and Wisconsin about creating false slates of electors. She co-signed a letter in December 2021 calling for House Republicans to expel Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger from the Republican conference for joining the January 6 committee.

There is a federal statute, 28 USC 455, which requires judges to disqualify “when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned”. Justice Thomas has a clear conflict of interest because his wife has aligned with one side of the January 6 fight. She could possibly be a witness. She has a material stake in how the Court decides.

Both conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety are implicated. Justice Thomas would have an interest in insuring the exoneration of his wife. While she is not a January 6 defendant herself, she was an accomplice in various aspects of the Trump multi-pronged insurrectionary schemes. As Sen. Dick Durbin recently said:

“There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice, he should recuse himself.”

Under the Court’s new Code of Conduct there is a judicial canon about avoiding the appearance of impropriety. There is a section under disqualification that says a justice should disqualify himself where his spouse has an interest that “could be affected substantially by the outcome of a proceeding”.

It is not an ethical close call to see that Justice Thomas has no business ruling on January 6 cases. To his credit he did recuse from one case where his former law clerk, John Eastman, was a defendant but there is not yet any indication he will recuse from other January 6 cases. He has already participated in some, including a solo dissent in a case where he unsuccessfully tried to block the January 6 committee subpoena for presidential records, including records that included his wife’s activities.

There are many unexplored ethical issues around Ginni Thomas and her husband. She has received many thousands of dollars from conservative dark money interests. Some of these funders have had cases before the Court. For example, she earned more than $200,000 in 2017-18 from the anti-immigrant Center for Security Policy. Their founder, Frank Gaffney, signed an amicus brief in Trump v Hawaii, a case that allowed Trump’s Muslim ban to move forward. Thomas cast the deciding fifth vote.

Unfortunately there is no requirement that a spouse of a justice who owns a firm must reveal the identities of her clients which could reveal potential conflicts of interest. Because of that reality there is no way to know if a spouse’s business venture is serving as a backdoor to payments to a justice.

We now do know that Justice Thomas has been subsidized by ultra-conservative billionaires who were afraid he might leave the Court. ProPublica reported that Thomas received trips and vacations he failed to report which totaled in the millions of dollars. Thomas had been in deep debt in his early years on the Supreme Court.

Justice Thomas stands as the best example of the failure of ethical self-policing. When left to his own devices, misconduct ensued. There is an old judicial maxim “No man shall be a judge in his own cause”. Where Ginni Thomas and January 6 are concerned, that is Clarence Thomas.
.

My mom was not the most political person. Although my grandfather used to call her “the Russian”, I never understood that. Both my parents were liberal Democrats but I wouldn’t say politics played a big role in their lives. There was, however, one political thing my mom was passionate about: she was fiercely pro-choice about abortion rights. I remember her reaction, her joy, when the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade. My mom had lived through the era of coat hanger abortions.

My mom died in 2010. She would have been appalled by the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, reversing Roe v Wade. But I think she might have had an even bigger reaction to the case of Kate Cox of Texas. The case perfectly captures the harm done to women by the legal perfidy of the anti-abortion movement.

Kate Cox, a 31 year old pregnant mother of two, found out that her fetus had a diagnosis incompatible with life. She received the diagnosis of Trisomy 18, a genetic anomaly that always results in miscarriage, stillbirth or infant death very shortly after birth. Cox was over 20 weeks pregnant when she got this devastating diagnosis.

Trisomy 18 can cause severe physical pain for the mother. It can also impair the ability to have children in the future. Cox had been to the ER four times for pregnancy symptoms including severe cramps, leaking fluid and elevated vital signs. Continuing her pregnancy put Cox herself at risk. Her doctor believed in good faith that an abortion was medically necessary.

Texas is one of the 21 states that have now completely banned abortion or restricted the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the standard set by Roe v Wade. In Texas, abortion is banned after 6 weeks. Texas does have a “medical emergency” statute that went into effect after Dobbs. It allows for an abortion only if the mother has a “life-threatening” condition while pregnant or is at “severe risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function”.

Even in the middle of a living hell, Cox retained a lawyer, litigated her situation and a state court judge ruled she could terminate her pregnancy. However, Texas’s Attorney General, Ken Paxton, appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court. Paxton didn’t believe Cox suffered from a life-threatening physical condition. He argued she didn’t meet the exception to the abortion ban.

Texas allows for no exception for severe fetal anomalies. Paxton’s position was that women must be forced to carry dying fetuses to term regardless of the maternal mortality risk. He wrote letters to three Texas hospitals advising them against giving Cox an abortion and threatening first degree felony prosecution. Paxton wrote those letters after the state court judge authorized the abortion.

Texas law authorizes penalties for up to life in prison for any doctor who performs an abortion. It also allows the infamous bounty hunter penalty where anyone who aids or abets an abortion can face a $10,000 pay out.

The all-Republican, elected Texas Supreme Court unanimously found that Cox didn’t fit the abortion exception even though her doctor believed she did. Apparently Cox had to be in septic shock or dying of sepsis.

Just to get a flavor of the far right quality of that court, consider Justice John Devine, a hardcore Christian fundamentalist who had been arrested 37 times for protesting at abortion clinics. Devine campaigned on his wife’s decision to carry a high-risk pregnancy (her seventh) to term even though the fetus had a condition that endangered his wife’s life. The baby died an hour after childbirth but his wife survived.

Cox didn’t wait for the Texas Supreme Court to issue their opinion. She left the state to receive the health care she needed. A Texas Right to Life spokesperson, Kimberlyn Schwartz, lamented that Cox could have the procedure elsewhere. She said,

“We mourn the decision to take Baby Cox’s life rather than give her every chance at life.”

This case demonstrates the problem with legal exceptions to abortion bans. Lawyers will always disagree about whether the circumstances of pregnancy meet the exception especially when legal language is vague which it typically is. In another massive Texas case, Zurawski v Texas, 20 Texas women claim they have been denied medical care for their complicated pregnancies. The plaintiffs are asking for clarification of the law to help Texas physicians. The case is awaiting a decision by the Texas Supreme Court.

Cox’s situation is hardly unique. As has quickly become evident, many, many women are getting pushed into prolonging doomed pregnancies. Some of the women will die. Many women lack the financial means to quickly leave Texas. This situation is guaranteed to be played out in the states with abortion bans.

Pro-abortion rights advocate, Jessica Valenti, says that the pro-life movement remains intent on banning abortion in hopeless cases of fetal anomaly. Instead, they go in the opposite direction and want to do away with pre-natal testing. They claim the tests aren’t accurate. The craziness is that anti-abortion fanatics are putting womens’ lives in danger. They want women to be forced to give birth to dead babies.

This is not pro-life. Forcing birth prioritizes inevitably dead babies over their mothers. The woman is reduced to a brood mare, a vessel with no say over her own life.

The Dobbs decision took away an individual right that had existed for 50 years. It opened the door to state bans like Texas’s. Who are these men, whether Ken Paxton or Sam Alito, who think they know better than women and their doctors? These great legal minds have zero relationship to the women experiencing their pregnancies. Nor do they have any medical training. They don’t live with the consequences of their brilliant decisions.

Fundamentally, the struggle is about male control over women. Profound sexism joined with cruelty to produce Cox’s situation. It should be clear by now that the anti-abortion movement has no plans to compromise. They plan for a national ban. If they have the chance, they will make no state safe for women.

Republicans, you own this. The pro-choice movement must have the long-term goal of overturning Dobbs and restoring reproductive freedom in every state.

As a 1960’s person who has nursed high expectations for social change, it is hard not to be extremely depressed at the state of our politics. Hopes of an evolution toward a less militaristic, ecologically-sensitive multi-racial democracy keep getting knocked back. One bright spot, however, has been the emergence and growth of the Squad in Congress.

Led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and including Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman and Summer Lee, the Squad represents a vision of progressive change for an America that desperately needs transformation from older paradigms.

That vision includes a sincere effort to address the climate change emergency, a revitalized labor movement, an attack on the economic inequality that has benefited the 1% at the expense of the 99%, a federal jobs guarantee with increased minimum wage, Medicare for all, forgiveness of significant student loan debt, a greatly reduced Pentagon budget, public funding of elections, a reduction in gun violence, reproductive rights for women, an end to police brutality and the dismantling of institutional racism.

We need an America where racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism and Islamophobia are considered absolutely unacceptable. Somehow, throughout our history we gave failed to reckon with our two greatest historical sins: the genocide against Native Americans and slavery with its residual effects still holding back African-Americans. Reckoning should mean both public acknowledgement of the crimes and further steps toward rectification.

As the inheritors of Occupy Wall Street and the two Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns, the Squad, among lawmakers, best represents the vision for transformative change. I know many Democrats may not buy in to such a vision. The reasons why people vote for a candidate are varied and idiosyncratic.

One strong tendency among Democrats is the notion they should simply run against what a train wreck the Republican Party has become. And it is undeniable that the Republican Party has descended to new depths. Their putative leader promises to be a dictator on day one.

Many moderate Democrats want a return to normalcy. They think it is enough to run for democracy and against Trump. I would suggest that the desire to run as the party of normalcy is a big mistake. That perspective is a status quo vision.

Many working people, whether in urban or rural America, have good reason to be furious. The system has stacked the deck against them and Trump appeals to that disillusionment even though he is an utter fraud. Democrats need to offer positive reasons for casting the ballot. Democrats need to follow the FDR tradition, reaching out to working people with a vision and a program. Democrats should be much more welcoming and less negatively judgmental.

The Republican effort to present themselves as a working class party is a bad joke. Preppy twits like Tucker Carlson and Yale law grad Josh Hawley are not exactly the salt of the earth. The Republicans talk about elites but if you follow the money they are largely funded by the 1% and they reflect ruling class values and priorities like tax cuts for the super-rich. All their talk about wokeness is distracting nonsense.

The Squad deserves attention now because the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, also known as AIPAC, is planning on spending $100 million in the 2024 election cycle to take down Squad members. This is a threat to the existence of any progressive presence in Congress. AIPAC is recruiting primary challengers against multiple Squad members.

They take this initiative to ensure Congress stands in lockstep with Israel no matter how extreme the actions of Israel’s far right government. AIPAC is targeting politicians they perceive as at all critical of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Both as a Jewish person and a progressive, I find AIPAC’s efforts to primary and unseat the Squad reprehensible and morally bankrupt. They ignore the fascist threat represented by the present incarnation of the Republican Partly. AIPAC has actually endorsed more than 100 Republican lawmakers who voted to subvert the 2020 presidential election in service of Trump’s Big Lie.

Rep. Cori Bush described what is going on most accurately. She said:

“AIPAC is attempting to buy blue seats with GOP donor money.”

We have already seen AIPAC inject Republican megadonor bucks into Democratic races. In 2022, an AIPAC-affiliated group, United Democracy Project, spent over $4 million to defeat progressive Democrat and synagogue president Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich) because he supported Palestinian rights. Levin said:

“…AIPAC can’t stand the idea that I am the clearest, strongest Jewish voice in Congress standing for a simple proposition: that there is no way to have a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people unless we achieve the political and human rights of the Palestinian people.”

AIPAC tried unsuccessfully to take down Summer Lee, a western Pa. Congresswoman. They spent $3 million in that effort. Through their PACs, they successfully took down Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md) by spending nearly $7 million in that race. They just offered Hill Harper $20 million to run against Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) but Harper denied that offer.

AIPAC has zero commitment to any progressive values. They stand in the dark money tradition of trying to purchase election results by overwhelming opponents with enormous cash outlays. Imagine how Republicans would react if they saw Democratic megadonors trying to buy wins in Republican primaries. Where is the Democratic outrage for this interference?

Contrary to what they think they are doing, AIPAC’s efforts will only result in more antisemitism. Jews and progressives should not be supporting Israel’s extremist government. We should be supporting calls for a ceasefire and a political settlement. With its spending spree against the Squad, AIPAC plays into the hands of Trump and the MAGA fascists.

What AIPAC is doing now is dangerous to the future of the Democratic Party. Their efforts may deprive Democrats of a young generation of leaders who we need to promote change and to protect democracy.

Normally a decision by a federal appellate court would not be considered big news. But in a two to one ruling, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over 8 states, effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act (or VRA). This is the law that civil rights groups have used to challenge racial discrimination in voting.

In the case, Arkansas State Conference NAACP v Arkansas Policy Panel, the Court ruled that the NAACP did not have the right to bring the case of racial discrimination alleged because there was no private right of action under the law. That is legal-speak for the Court saying the NAACP or any other civil rights group cannot sue under the VRA. The Court said only the Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under that law.

The case will almost certainly go up to the Supreme Court. It is hard to overstate the importance of the case. If the Supreme Court upholds the 8th Circuit decision, civil rights groups wouldn’t be able to challenge discriminatory voting practices like gerrymandered maps, redistricting and voter ID requirements. The 8th Circuit would outlaw most efforts to ensure Americans are not denied the right to vote on the basis of race.

Up until now, it has been, overwhelmingly, private parties who have brought successful lawsuits under the VRA. Over the last 40 years, of the 182 successful lawsuits brought under the VRA, the Department of Justice only brought 15. That reflects both the lack of resources as well as the priorities of the Department of Justice. For example, during the Trump presidency, the Department of Justice only brought one case under the VRA. Republicans have shown zero interest in enforcing the VRA.

It is clear that Congress had intended to allow private enforcement of the law but opponents of the VRA have jumped on the fact that the text of the law doesn’t say so explicitly. The opponents belittle 58 years of cases, including many at the Supreme Court, where this was never raised as an issue. Even worse the opponents belittle the centrality of the voting rights struggle in American history.

I would suggest that it is impossible to appreciate the significance of the 8th Circuit decision outside the broader context of U.S. history and the struggle to create a multi-racial democracy. The VRA passed in 1965 under the Lyndon Johnson administration, The law is a testament to the bloody struggles fought to counter suppression of Black voters across the South.

Preventing blacks from voting was central to the white supremacist project. White citizen councils in southern states blacklisted registered black voters to try and deny them essential services. The white citizens councils could get white elites to cut off credit and deny employment to blacks. They could get sharecropping blacks who registered to vote evicted. Intimidation was the name of the game.

Voting rights activists were beaten and arrested for trying to vote. SNCC activist Herbert Lee was murdered in 1961 after he started attending voter registration classes. Voter suppression and violence were key tools of the white supremacists.

Although the right to vote was supposedly guaranteed under the 15th Amendment which came into being after the Civil War, it turned out the right was anything but guaranteed. It had to be fought for continuously. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, both political parties allowed disenfranchisement of black voters. Courts didn’t stand up to Jim Crow and gave constitutional blessing to white supremacy.

Adam Serwer has written that the pattern was set by the Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v Cruikshank in 1876. In the context of a contested election and efforts to disallow minority voting registration, blacks were supporting the election of Republican candidates. A white mob descended on the courthouse in Colfax Louisiana in April 1873 where blacks were making a stand. Totally outgunned, a massacre ensued after the courthouse was set ablaze. Fleeing blacks were executed.

72 white men were indicted for the crime of slaughtering over 100 black men.. Federal charges were brought under the Enforcement Act of 1870 which had been designed for prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government lacked the authority to charge the perpetrators. This was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. The Court framed their decision in the language of limited government and individual liberty but the Court gave free rein to the white supremacists. The author of the opinion, Justice Joseph Bradley, relied on the fact that the murderers had not declared their crimes were done with a design to deprive the victims of their rights on account of race.

So we have white racists carrying out a massacre but the Court somehow found it was not because of race. This was the template for allowing Jim Crow to proceed. The Reconstruction amendments were written to reverse Dred Scott but the Court was saying the Bill of Rights did not apply to freedmen. Without federal protection, injustice ruled in the southern states.

For the next 75 years the courts failed people of color and actually encouraged the rise of white supremacy. They gave judicial sanction to a regime of racial fascism. The law professor Randall Kennedy has written:

“For a large portion of American life people of color have been treated unjustly, and for most of that period the Supreme Court has found ways to rationalize that.”

Unfortunately what we are seeing now is a continuation of a long-standing pattern. The absurdity of Cruikshank was the idea that a racist slaughter could be carried out without punishment if the perpetrators did not say it was done to promote racism. Just as courts backed off on the black voting rights struggle after Reconstruction, the same thing is happening now in the aftermath of the civil rights movement. Courts are chipping away at the VRA as the 21st century way to update disenfranchisement of black voters.

The strategy of the conservative legal movement is to make it impossible for legal challenges to racist practices to go forward. The 8th Circuit Arkansas case is a perfect example. The gerrymandered electoral map the NAACP challenged weakened black voting power in the state. If no one like the NAACP or the ACLU can bring a case, the gerrymander will stand. It used to be poll taxes and literacy tests. Now it is short-circuiting the private right of action.

How the Supreme Court resolves the Arkansas case will be telling. While Chief Justice Roberts has a history of hostility to the VRA (Shelby County decision comes to mind) he did author a recent Alabama decision, Allen v Milligan, that protected Section 2 of the VRA.

This Arkansas case may be too much even for Chief Justice Roberts. Saying civil rights groups have no right to sue under the VRA (something they have been doing for over 50 years) is not just wrong, it is contrary to common sense. A decision upholding the 8th Circuit in the Arkansas case could cause absolute chaos. States that have lost cases to private parties could conceivably sue to reverse their VRA verdicts. The number of VRA cases brought would drastically plummet.

Pretending that racial discrimination in voting is essentially over is fantasy land. Underneath the Arkansas case is the question: what kind of America will we be? Will we be going back to the 19th century dark ages or will we move forward toward the goal of vibrant multi-racial democracy ? We have come too far to go back.