Louisiana vs. the ‘non-African Americans'
But as Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, pointed out, it's the old legal racial switcheroo. And history is rhyming.
'The argument put forth by the plaintiffs seeking the requirement of race blindness, even in the course of remedying racial vote dilution, is not new,' Jenkins said Wednesday, previewing the March 24 argument to members of the press. 'It dates back to the civil rights movement, when opponents of voting rights protections for minority groups used the same argument to oppose addressing racial discrimination. The irony and hypocrisy is hard to miss.'
The National Democratic Redistricting Committee was among the groups that
Advertisement
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued a ruling rejecting a similarly racially rigged map in Alabama. So rather than fight, Louisiana lawmakers decided to go back to the map-drawing board and try to comply with the justices' ruling.
Lawmakers drafted and the governor approved a new map that included
But then the state was sued by the 'non-African American' group, which said that the
new
map was forbidden because state officials drafted it primarily on the basis of race. Yes: They argued that the state violated the law by complying with a ruling that said you can't racially discriminate against Black people.
Advertisement
Now Louisiana officials are crying uncle, saying they will be damned with Black voter dilution lawsuits if they throw out the new map and damned with racial discrimination lawsuits from non-Afrian American voters if they don't. They asked the Supreme Court to sort it all out instead.
Here's the bad news for democracy lovers: The Supreme Court has, for more than a decade, become increasingly critical of the racial components of the Voting Rights Act itself. In 2013,
So the non-African Americans must be feeling pretty bullish. They'll make their case to the justices later this month. I'll let you know how it goes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Censorship is no way to get people to respect transgender rights
There was good and bad news for transgender rights in the U.S. last week. The good news was that a transgender high school athlete won two events in a girls' state track meet. And the bad news was that the Supreme Court allowed a school to censor a student's expression of the belief that there are only two genders. Suppressing ideas is never a good look in the U.S., whose Bill of Rights presupposes a freedom of speech that cannot be legislated away. And if we deny that freedom to anyone, then all of us — including transgender people — will lose. Free speech was on full display at the California track-and-field championship in Clovis, Calif. Under a new rule promulgated by the state interscholastic federation, the girls who finished just behind transgender athlete AB Hernandez in the high jump and triple jump were elevated to share her medals. That seemed just fine to Hernandez and also the other girls on the podium, who all exchanged high-fives and hugs. But it was not okay with protesters who gathered outside the stadium, chanting 'No boys in girls' sports.' Taylor Starling, a cross-country runner went on Fox News with her father to denounce 'guys that are taking away girls' awards, their medals, their spots.' Starling is part of a lawsuit alleging that she was demoted from her varsity track and field team when a transgender athlete took her spot. President Trump, meanwhile, threatened 'large scale fines' against California for allowing a 'Biological male' to compete the 'Girls State Finals.' Hernandez's mother fired back, denouncing people 'in positions of power' for harassing her daughter. Hernandez also spoke up against her critics: 'I'm still a child, you're an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person.' But as petty and small as it may be for Hernandez's detractors to malign her as a 'boy' or a 'male,' they have the right to say it — just as I have the right to call them out. That's called America. Alas, that's also a memo that educators in Middleborough, Mass. seem to have missed. Earlier this spring, they sent home a seventh-grader for wearing a T-shirt declaring, 'There Are Only Two Genders' because 'other students had complained about the T-shirt and that it had 'made them upset.'' Then the student came back in a T-shirt that said, 'There are CENSORED Genders.' The school told him that wouldn't be allowed, either. I'm sure the shirts did make some people upset, but I also imagine that some were upset by a student at the same school who wore a T-shirt that read, 'HE SHE THEY IT'S ALL OKAY.' Once we decide to censor upsetting speech, we won't be able to speak at all. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker could wear a black armband to her Iowa middle school to protest America's war in Vietnam. Schools cannot suppress speech out of 'a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' the court declared in Tinker v. Des Moines. The only justifiable reason for restricting speech was if it threatened 'material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.' Did the T-shirt saying there are only two genders pose that kind of danger? Of course not. But a federal trial judge ruled that the school could censor the student anyway, because he was threatening 'the rights of others' to attend school 'without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.' So what would prevent a school from prohibiting the 'HE SHE THEY' shirt, on the grounds that it threatened the identities of devout Christians and Muslims? And couldn't a school also bar speech in support of AB Hernandez, whose critics might claim that their own gender identities were under fire? In each case, the answer is yes. Nevertheless, an appeals court upheld the Massachusetts judge's decision. And last week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. In doing so, it turned its back on Tinker v. Des Moines and its ringing affirmation of freedom, which is fundamental to our shared identity as Americans. 'Any word spoken in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance,' the Tinker ruling acknowledged. 'But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength.' In California, AB Hernandez demonstrated precisely that strength. But in Massachusetts, school officials closed off speech out of fear. That's a hazard to the freedom of everyone, no matter what they think about gender. And if you think otherwise, watch out. Someday soon, the censors may be coming for you. Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LA Riots, Deportations, N-Word Karens and Other Distractions That Have Black Folks Sleepwalking
In an era marked by rising hate and division, the Black community faces a new kind of attack — and it isn't always glaringly obvious. As chaos unfolds on screens and in headlines, the real threats slip by unnoticed, quietly reshaping our future. This is the cautionary tale about how distraction has become a weapon, and why staying truly woke means seeing beyond the noise to protect what's ours. Now, we love the phrase 'Stay woke' — thanks, Donald Glover — but it feels like we're sleepwalking through some of the biggest moves against us without fully grasping the severity of the situation on our hands. Whether people are picking up the pieces to failed immigration policies — sparking protests like the ICE L.A. riots — or we're sucked into reality TV, we must face these issues head-on. Let's take a deep dive into some of the major players in this advanced game of distraction, and how the tactics are used against us. Shocking immigration riots took place on June 8 in Los Angeles, where thousands took to the streets after ICE launched sweeping raids. Protesters were outraged over mass detentions, family separations, and the sudden deployment of National Guard troops while facing troops, tear gas, rubber bullets, and site-wide curfews. While Black and immigrant communities fight for their voice and future, chaos is staged at the hand of the Trump administration — once again — to keep everyone on edge and off their game. Frankly, the visible and physical tactic of slapping down unity is a slap in the face…and protesters weren't afraid to turn up in the faces of the California National Guard. At least 56 were arrested over the weekend, per NBC News. Don't come for us when we say this, but entertainment is slowly but surely becoming a form of mind control. Every scandal, every rabbit hole, every bombshell media trial (we're looking at you, Diddy) — it's all keeping us locked in and tuned out. Using celebs to push agendas? We're over it. It's Rome all over again, a reminder of how entertainment was used as a tool to minimize the potential for civil unrest, while enhancing their popularity and image. Works every time — but we're on to it. Many Black folks feel some decisions made by the Trump administration are slowly chipping away at the potential for Black progress. Community programs that offer support to education and health are being cut and stripped of their funding, such as proposed cuts to Title I funding. By the time we look up, they're already out the back door with a program — such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — that was set in place to encourage Black success. Needless to say, politics can be a masterclass in misdirection. During the era of our civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, activism was rooted in real sacrifice. Today, social justice is somewhat of a trendy accessory: changing your Facebook photo to stand with victims and adding the black square to your Instagram profile. During the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, people, young and elderly, opted out of the bus system due to harsh treatment for a staggering 381 days—from Dec. 5, 1955 to Dec. 20, 1956. Compare that to now, where many won't log off for three minutes — let alone stand ten toes down for over a year. We can easily call this digital programming. Every person's feed is created especially for them, fueling their triggers, addictions, and messiest obsessions for monetary gain. No matter the social app, the goal is to keep us doom-scrolling until we're late for work, short on sleep, or deep into a chaotic rabbit hole. All the trash gets pushed to the top while real-world updates are suppressed, rendering many uninformed. Election disputes causing voter suppression may not be the intention, but it can delay access or hinder full participation. Allegations of voter fraud, battles over ballot access and unexpected changes to voting rules disproportionately affect Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities. Claims of fraud become justifications for reduced early voting periods, restrictions on mail-in ballots, and stricter voter ID laws — all of which directly impact Black folks. It's bad enough some don't see the need to vote at all, and this surely doesn't help. At this point, just stop selling the microphones. Since the rise of YouTube podcasts, everybody's a scholar, everybody's got 'sources,' and everybody's reporting something — facts optional. It's a mess. And while the misinformation marathon continues, the truth doesn't even get a head start and opinions are seemingly as good as facts. Thanks to the late Kevin Samuels and many others, Black men and women turned what should be a wholesome discussion into a full-blown battlefield — and social media's eating it up. Known as 'Red Pill' content, some podcasts are built on dragging each other down, 'high value' nonsense and endless 'who brings what to the table' debates. Unifying the Black family has to be central to maintain success. While we're busy fighting each other, the real ops stay winning and we're watching it happen in 4K. They're not even hiding it anymore. Right under our noses, Black studies are being slashed from school curriculums, and key parts of our history are vanishing from textbooks. Since 2021, 44 schools have proposed bills in favor of restricting what's called critical race theory (CRT), per EdTrust. This prevents teachers from giving lessons on important topics, including systemic racism. From Florida to Texas, the erasure is real — and strategic. Whether it's 'talk proper' or 'dress like you want the job,' respectability politics whispers lies about what it takes to be accepted or protected here. We're taught to shrink, conform, and dilute our Blackness to make others comfortable — even though it hasn't stopped injustices. It's a distraction that places blame on individuals instead of the system designed to undermine, no matter how polished we appear. Covert anti-Blackness — whether it's subtle or in-your-face systemic discrimination — chips away at a system that talks big about freedom, equality, and representation. Under Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Navy to wipe the names of civil rights legends like Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg off naval ships. This kind of quiet erasure isn't loud, but it's no accident — it's polished and intentional. It seems Trump's administration has mastered the art of political theatre — one minute commuting the federal sentence of Chicago gang founder Larry Hoover, the next stripping the names of beloved civil rights leaders from U.S. Navy ships. While our attention was diverted to controversy, chaos, and entertainment, critical programs were defunded, protections dismantled, and inequalities deepened. This isn't just politics — it's a performance meant to mislead and confuse. With so many distractions in play before us, becoming more vigilant and spotting foul play is key. The time has come to cut the noise, and focus on moving forward together as a people in power.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out "in order for those members to do their work." More from Personal Finance:Millions would lose health insurance under GOP megabillAverage 401(k) balances drop 3% due to market volatilityTrump administration asks Supreme Court to lift ban on Education Dept. layoffs Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to "carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems." Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency "will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data," they said, while vowing to "use every legal tool at our disposal" to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had "abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy" of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the "most sensitive" personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show "DOGE received far broader data access" than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. "The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. "But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention," Justice Jackson wrote.
