Speaking of Jouranlists creating racist strawmen and then using them to attack you, this was published by NBC.
I’ve been assured by the media for the last three years that all Trump voters are racist and the only motivation anyone has for voting for Trump is racism.
So now it seems that a journalist writing for NBC has figured out how to use that assumption to deny Trump voters their franchise.
If the Trump era has taught us anything, it’s that large numbers of white people in the United States are motivated at least in part by racism in the voting booth.
Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.
How to keep Trump from winning 2020, deny them the right to vote. But legally, by assuming their motives, because voter suppression is wrong.
But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated.
So is the plan to put law enforcement outside poling places and ask white people “how are you voting for?” If they answer with Trump, they are then asked: “why are you voting for Trump?” And if the answer sounds racist, they are turned away from the polls. Because that’s what I feel like they are getting at?
“When voters go to the booth, they’re not expressing a mere personal preference,” Smith told me. According to Smith, voters who pull the levers to harm black people are violating the Constitution. If the Constitution means that overt racist appeals undermine the legality of union elections, it stands to reason that they undermine the legality of other elections, as well.
And how do we know that voters are “pull[ing] the levers to harm black people?”
My tax return doubled after Trump passed his tax plan. The creation of Space Force is boosting money and jobs in Huntsville. So if I vote for Trump in 2020, will they assume it’s because I want to keep my larger tax return and see Huntsville be SPACECOM, or that it’s because I want black people to suffer? Who am I kidding, they will assume the worst about me.
So how can you tell when voters are acting out of prejudice? Again, Smith says, employment discrimination law provides a useful analogy. In discrimination cases, courts look for pretexts. If someone gives a reason for a hiring decision that is obviously false or makes little sense in context, the court has good reason to believe that prejudice or bias may have influenced the hiring decision.
What sort of background check will voters be subjected to before they are determined not racist enough to vote?
Maybe “did you vote for Trump in 2016?” or “did you vote against Barack Obama?” Answer “yes” to either of those and you don’t get your ballot.
It’s more difficult to censure voters who have violated their constitutional duties. Nullifying elections would be essentially impossible. But Smith argues that there are other options.
I’d like to know.
Even more ambitiously, Smith suggests expanding the Voting Rights Act to address the racist patterns of voting in Senate elections in the South. Because the majority of white voters in the South vote Republican, and because they outnumber black voters, there isn’t a single Democratic senator from the Deep South other than Doug Jones in Alabama, who may well lose his seat in 2020. Smith argues that we could remedy these disparate, racially motivated outcomes by creating Senate districts. Presumably, that would make it at least possible for black voters to elect a senator who would support their interests.
So the answer is to turn the Senate into a more powerful version of the House of Representatives? Will those black only senators get their own black-only electoral college votes?
I guess the Progressives are no longer happy with the 17th Amendment. The Left really hates the Senate.
Still, Smith points out, in the long term, “these remedies are a lot more practical than a lot of people might think.” Republicans won’t always control the presidency and the Senate, and judges don’t live forever. Democrats could also expand the number of seats on lower courts or even on the Supreme Court — another controversial proposal known as court-packing. If Democrats decide that responding to racist voting is a vital priority, they could, in time, take steps to do something about it.
“And once the Democrats control the Senate and Presidency again, we will fix it so the Republicans never win it ever again, even if they have to destroy the entire electoral process to do it.”
Politicians and pundits, Republican and Democratic alike, have been unwilling to reprimand voters or hold them accountable.
The Democrats have been reprimanding voters for not voting for Hillary for three years. What they haven’t been able to do is punish them. That is going to change.
But voters are not well-intentioned innocents who are helplessly manipulated by malevolent leaders. They make important decisions as constitutional actors, for which they have moral responsibility. Racist voting isn’t an accident. It’s a choice that may violate the principles of our Constitution and our legal system. We should say so, and then we should find ways to reduce the harm it causes.
But how do you separate the racist voters from the non-racist?
Clearly, given the last three years, the answer is simple. Assume all non-Democrat voters are racist work to deny them the franchise or eliminate their representation in government.