WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2026
In our view, part (b) is hard: Extemporaneous speech is hard.
It can be hard to speak clearly off the cuff—and it's never been harder than it currently is as people try to discuss the Supreme Court's recent Callais decision. Or when people try to explain the original holdings of the Voting Rights Act in general.
What did the VRA say in 1965, when it was enacted? What did it say as of 1982, when Congress added this language to the VRA's Section 2?
SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
42 U.S.C. § 1973. Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation.
a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b
(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.
Congress added part (b) in 1982. (We've provided italicization.) Good luck trying to understand or explain what that torrent of new language actually meant.
In fairness, the final line in part (b) was in fact fairly straightforward. Its words go exactly like this:
Nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.
According to that provision, "a protected class" (worrisome term) is allowed to have "members elected in numbers equal to their proportion of the population." There would certainly be nothing illegal or wrong about that!
(South Carolina seems to have achieved that goal in 2011-2012. It had two Black congressmen at that time—James Clyburn and Tim Scott.)
But that same passage plainly says that there is no right to such an outcome—no legal obligation. That seems fairly clear. But as for the language which precedes it, good luck untangling this:
A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a protected class in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives of their choice.
Good luck with that highlighted construction. Meanwhile, if you can't see that that's a cloudy construction, that may be precisely the problem!
Last evening, Laura Coates went there again. On CNN's Laura Coates Live, she spoke with Scott Jennings about this very source of chaos and verbal confusion.
You can see the videotape of their exchange by clicking to this report from Mediaite. At one point, Coates made the statement shown below (we've corrected some errors from the transcript at Mediaite):
COATES (5/26/26): I was in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division. And I’ll tell you, as everyone realizes, that when you dilute the voting power of a particular population, the "One person, one vote" is essentially a myth.
If you tell them that they’re going to be separated and can never actually vote for a candidate that they’re choosing or have the opportunity to have that candidate elected, that’s problematic.
And before you give me that squint, don’t tell me that Republicans have fewer offices in New England or wherever. But the crux of the matter is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to make sure that voting strength was universal. And if you dilute that power through gerrymandering and separating districts, then you do undermine the ability to do that very thing.
Laura Coates is plainly a good, decent person. It isn't her fault that extemporaneous speech can be very hard. But that presentation is, in the end, clear as mud.
(Beyond that, we wish people would stop talking about "the Voting Rights Act of 1965" when it seems they're really referring to provisions which appeared in 1982. It wouldn't really help in the end, but it would at least suggest that people are trying to make accurate statements about this important topic.)
Explaining things is hard! Explaining the relevant section of the occasionally murky VRA can be extremely hard. For starters, here's an apparent conundrum:
Part (b) of Section 2 explicitly says that a "protected class" (will we ever be willing to abandon that term?) is not entitled to have members elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.
Part (b) explicitly says that! And yet, courts have routinely seemed to order states to create (absurdly gerrymandered) congressional districts in such a way as to pursue that very outcome!
It's been that way for decades now. On its face, that's what Louisiana was ordered to do on its way to the Callais decision.
Question:
If a state is one-third Black, was the state somehow obligated to create (gerrymandered) congressional districts which were one-third "majority Black?" It seemed that courts were saying they were—but is that what part (b) said?
For ourselves, we'd like to see Blue America "dare to struggle, dare to win." We think the notion that Black Americans must be treated as a "protected class" has possibly reached its sell-by date.
We know the complications of that concept lead some wavering Trump voters to hang onto their wings! But the conceptual confusion here is immense—and as the later Wittgenstein clumsily showed, when critters like us were sent to this earth, it seems clear that we weren't built for this particular type of work.
Untangling part (b) is a chore! We Blues don't seem to see it that way. A great deal remains to be said.
"It can be hard to speak clearly off the cuff—and it's never been harder than it currently is as people try to discuss the Supreme Court's recent Callais decision. Or when people try to explain the original holdings of the Voting Rights Act in general."
ReplyDeleteThis is why listeners give speakers "linguistic charity" which means they actively construe meaning along with the speaker, using context and other clues to understand what is meant, not necessarily what is said. Somerby does not believe in such charity, using his blog to nitpick trivial mistakes as a way of demeaning journalists and others who are quoted.
Somerby seems to have no clue about pragmatics, especially the rules developed by H.P. Grice:
"H.P. Grice (Conversational Implicature): Introduced his Cooperative Principle in 1975, explaining how listeners successfully "read between the lines" to understand unstated, implied meanings based on unspoken conversational rules."
We learn these rules by speaking with others as children and growing up, just as we learn grammar and vocabulary and etiquette. Somerby abuses interpretation of speech in order to play a game of "gotcha" with others he targets.
First he claims speech is hard but then he switches to the kinds of legalistic meanings and definitions understood by lawyers and decided by court precedents and court opinions. That is far different than what occurs in everyday conversation. Language is governed by context and legal writing is very different than conversation or even journalistic reporting. This conflation by Somerby is dishonest, especially if he knows the slightest thing about language and its use. (I suspect he doesn't, although he should with his training in philosophy, even 60+ years ago.)
Somerby dumbly asks:
"Part (b) of Section 2 explicitly says that a "protected class" (will we ever be willing to abandon that term?)..."
No, of course not. It is a legal term with a legal meaning. Somerby doesn't like it when minorities are protected classes under law, so he thinks the term should be abandoned (and with it the protections, I suppose?). This is a symptom of Somerby's racism, that he doesn't understand the need for ongoing protection against discrimination in the administration of constitutional rights, such as voting. This is why Somerby is an asshole. He thinks that by creating pseudo-confusion over legal language he may be able to convince readers that the VRA didn't say what it clearly did say. Why? Because it is in the right wing's advantage to deny black people their voting rights, in order to gain a partisan political advantage against Democrats. This isn't complicated at all.
What would happen if we all started holding Trump to every word he has been speaking so poorly off-the-cuff?
ReplyDeleteOne interpretation is that majority black voting districts are OK, in order that blacks have the opportunity to elect the person of their choice. But, quotas are not OK. If the majority black district elect a non-blacks there's no civil rights violation.
ReplyDeleteVoting reflects the will of the people. Setting aside seats by court appointment or fiat for specific people by race is not OK.
DeleteIn case David doesn't know it, India has a caste system and has attempted to ban discrimination by caste, but it DOES set aside admission seats in universities, jobs, and voting by caste. That is how they ensure fairness of representation, especially for the lower castes. Similarly, Iceland dictates that 50% of its legislature must be female, although the voters decide which women will serve.
This hair-splitting is over what our Constitution requires and how our own voting system works. It is not about absolutes of fairness or philosophy and there is no right or wrong about how this should be done. Our laws are being applied to voting, not some abstract principle. So the issue is whether this partisan majority on the Supreme Court is bending the law and the intentions of the lawmakers in order to give Republicans more districts and votes. Somerby's fuss over part b is ridiculous and mainly trying to stir up controversy over nothing in order to support a wrong decision by the partisan justices.
"We think the notion that Black Americans must be treated as a "protected class" has possibly reached its sell-by date. "
ReplyDeleteHere Somerby makes his feelings explicit. He thinks racism is over and thus the protections enacted to level the playing field for racial minorities should end. That is what "reached its sell-by date" means to Somerby. He has said it before. It doesn't trouble him that statistics and sociology both show that discrimination still exists and negatively affects black people in our still-racist society.
I don't understand how Somerby can have the nerve to say this stuff after Hegseth blatantly fired top black leaders who had worked their way into high positions in the military, for no cause other than anti-DEI (which means racist, sexist, anti anyone multicultural or diverse in religion or national origin). That all by itself shows that we still need protected classes. Somerby gets excited when one black guy gets elected in a white district because he thinks it means there is parity, it supports his wrong-headed notion that racism is over.
Today's racist Somerby essay is offensive, but more than that, it indicates that he is not a Democrat but a right wing shill advancing the right's talking points, especially about the VRA and Callais decision.
DEI did not work in the military. It resulted in substandard performance, loss of morale, low recruiting.
DeleteAnyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party over a quarter of a century ago.
DeleteDavid in Cal,
DeleteIn your expert opinion, how much better has recruiting gotten, since Trump called anyone who dies for their country "losers" and "suckers"?
None of those statements is true. It is what racists and sexists say to justify their actions but you have quoted no statistics, nor have Hegseth or anyone else. The people fired were respected by those they served with. Possibility of promotion was good for morale. Historically, minorities have served in numbers disproportionately higher than their demographics. Their loss has created a recruiting crisis under Hegseth.
DeleteDavid in Cal,
DeleteI want to thank you, Stephen Miller, and Bibi for helping me re-examine my criticism of Nazi Germany with a keener eye.
If people wanted to live in merit-based society, the Inheritance Tax rate would be 100%.
DeleteDavid, the United States military has never done "DEI." You are speaking from your hindquarters.
DeleteTo be fair, hindquarters are all DiC has.
Delete"DEI did not work in the military. It resulted in substandard performance, loss of morale, low recruiting."
DeleteSpoken, we can only assume, from a place of deep knowledge of what is likely the largest and most complex organization in the world; including the setting and achievement of numerous performance standards; socio-economic factors impacting recruitment; and a rigorous analysis of data on troop morale.
We can assume this, right?
Hector - the difference in performance by the military under Trump and Hegseth is dramatic. Compare the withdrawal from Afghanistan -- probably the worst military f*ckup in our history vs. the bombing of Iran's underground nukes and the rescue of a downed airman -- two of the finest performances ever by our military. Compare recruiting shortages vs. recruiting excesses. A year's recruiting goals were reached 4 months before the end of the year.
DeleteThe policies used by Trump and Hegseth simply worked far far better than the policies used by Biden and Lloyd Austin.
The female head of the coast guard had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Hegseth is a drunk.
DeleteHeseth certain did drink a lot. He promised to stop drinking if he became Secy of defense. Do you have reason to believe that he isn't keeping this promise, @7:41?
DeleteRegarding the Coast Guard. Wiki says
"Fagan's dismissal was primarily due to:
Bipartisan Criticism: She faced significant criticism from members of Congress for allegedly resisting oversight.
Handling of Sexual Misconduct Investigations: Her management of Operation Fouled Anchor, which involved mishandled sexual assault allegations at the Coast Guard Academy, was a major factor. The investigation, which spanned from 2014 to 2020, was not disclosed to Congress until a 2023 report brought it to light."
“ Afghanistan -- probably the worst military f*ckup in our history”
DeleteVietnam … *cough* … Vietnam?
“ bombing of Iran's underground nukes”
DeleteWe obliterated them so hard the first time, we had to bomb them again, resulting in the closing of the strait and , well, i don’t know why you think the Iran war (excuse me excursion) is going so swimmingly David. You may be a Trump apologist.
Made up excuses to fire a woman who didn’t deserve it.
Delete"Compare the withdrawal from Afghanistan -- probably the worst military f*ckup in our history vs. the bombing of Iran's underground nukes and the rescue of a downed airman"
DeleteNo, I won't compare them for the same reason I wouldn't compare the battle of Austerlitz to Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. They're wildly unalike.
And since you don't seem to know, what lent such an aura of chaos to the Afghan withdrawal was that the Afghan government collapsed as the withdrawal began. Was that the military's fault? No.
You claim military morale has gone up under Hegseth. And your source for that is....you don't have one. But it pleases you to say it, so you do.
Recruitment has gone up, you did manage to get that right, no doubt partly due to Hegseth's invocation of Christ's blessing on each exploding bomb and his jaunty announcements of how the Iranians are sucking it as they die.
Final question: how many girls' schools were bombed during the Afghan withdrawal?
We have to get rid of women in politics.
DeleteAaxuarrally David, Biden executed the Trump/Pompeii surrender to the Taliban brilliantly, especially considering how fucked up the Trump/Pompeo surrender deal was that was negotiated without the Afghan government. You dumb fucking Nazi.
DeleteLet's start with Bari Weiss.
DeletePart (b) explicitly says that! And yet, courts have routinely seemed to order states to create (absurdly gerrymandered) congressional districts in such a way as to pursue that very outcome!
ReplyDeleteWell, duh! That's just what liberal judges do.
The written law doesn't matter if it conflicts with their desired outcome.
That's why they are so upset that the Supreme Court just put an end to it.
What is the Right going to do about it, not elect child rapists to positions of political power?
DeletePshaw.
The idle threats they think we'll fall for.
It's like when they say the rich will leave the country if we raise their taxes.
LOL.
Legislatures keep changing the rules to make sure that black voters don't matter.
Delete"as the later Wittgenstein clumsily showed, when critters like us were sent to this earth, it seems clear that we weren't built for this particular type of work."
ReplyDeleteWhere to start with this gibberish?
1. We are not critters.
2. We were not "sent to this earth" by anyone or anything. We evolved from earlier life forms to fit our ecological niche, so we are well-suited for the environmental challenges we face by dint of long evolution, including interacting with other people and communicating with them to ensure our mutual survival. That is why we are still here.
3. Wittgenstein did not say, imply or even hint any of the things Somerby attributes to him. He felt that language was too fuzzy to permit philosophical logic and formalism. That has been addressed by later philosophers who Somerby never mentions because they mostly did their work after Somerby left Harvard, and Somerby only dabbles in philosophy, even while he was a student.
4. Wittgenstein was not clumsy and Somerby, the lazy and fatuous student is the last person to call such a person clumsy, given that he flunked the course on Wittgenstein and had to repeat it in summer school (by his own admission).
5. We weren't "built" by anyone but we are evolved to live in groups and work together in a variety of ways because human survival is tenuous without the contributions of a community. Living in groups implies communication and cooperation.
6. Behavior that is poorly understood is often ascribed to instinct. That is what Somerby is doing when he refers to humans being unfit for democracy, when we humans created democracy in the first place, for the specific purpose of living together with diverse others in multi-cultural societies. Democracy provides a way of settling disputes, ensuring that the needs of all are met, and respecting diversity.
It is no surprise that Somerby is so willing to throw our greatest achievement as a country, our unique form of government, into the trash heap because he doesn't want to share with others. He may not be a billionaire but he hasn't exactly had to work for a living either. He is as narcissistic as Trump. When he claims we are not "built for this work," it is with no understanding of what work is like for most people, and no appreciation for how well our democracy has done so far, before the rich people pooled their nickels and decided to take over the government and toss out those who respect the law ("those wise restraints which make us all free").
Somerby is beneath contempt with his sophistry and pseudo-intellectual pose, looking down on our founding fathers, the philosophers they borrowed from to write our Constitution, those who fought and died to establish our country, and those who have struggled to extend the freedoms of rich, white men to all Americans. Somerby is scum.
"When he claims we are not "built for this work," it is with no understanding of what work is like for most people"
DeleteThe meaning of 'work' in the quote from Somerby has nothing to do with 'what work is like for most people.'
"Where to start with this gibberish?"
DeleteHow about with your utter inability to acknowledge a writer's use of metaphor?
How is this in any way a metaphor? Identify the metaphor and link it point by point to what the metaphor is about in your mind.
DeleteThe work is the effort needed to participate in a democracy. Somerby is too lazy to do that but he doesn’t mind undermining the work of others, such as the free press, the voting public, the laws ensuring fair elections (broken by Trump without a peep from Somerby). I suggested Somerby doesn’t value our system of govt because he is not invested in it. Narcissists don’t care what happens to other people.
DeleteWell, 6:55, when Bob says we're not 'built' for this work, he isn't saying he literally thinks we were 'built'. Nor does he literally think we were 'sent to this earth' by anyone. Nor does he literally think we're 'critters'.
DeleteThose who said there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot are speaking in metaphors.
DeleteGive them some credit.
They aren't literally saying there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot, because that would be ridiculous.
So Trump isn't literally a human version of a dirty diaper?
DeleteWho knew?
8:18,
DeleteTrump isn't literally the human version of anything.
"Alabama cannot use a new Republican-friendly map in this year’s midterm elections because it was drawn to intentionally discriminate against Black voters, a panel of three federal judges (nb: two of whom were appointed by Trump) ruled on Tuesday."
ReplyDeleteSo it's off to the Supreme Court again.
But, but, it’s really just partisanship, because blacks always vote for Democrats…meanwhile, those white voters in Louisiana were discriminated against, according to our illustrious SC..
DeleteUSSC used to no rule change when close to an election let alone when in the middle of one. But it's the way Project 2025 says the plutocrats now need to role to have minority rule forever.
DeleteI think my brain merged roll and rule into role. See what these asshole crooks does to a person?
Delete"Professor Brabender's famous bromide: "Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit!"
ReplyDeleteWhen will Somerby stop abusing this quote lifted out of context and not at all saying anyone was going to hit anyone. It is unfair to Brabender, who was not a violent person at all. You hit balls in baseball, not people.
If I were a southern black voter, I’d take this advice to heart.
DeleteBrabender wasn't talking about baseball, darling.
DeleteDo tell, 6:37? What pray tell was he referring to?
DeleteGo read the book (Ball Four). Brabender is sitting in the stands watching a game with a friend when there is an umpire call being disputed. The quote is literal not metaphorical. Brabender was not a violent guy and baseball isn’t ice hockey. Somerby is misusing the quote, perhaps because it amuses him to do so, or because he wants to refer to ciolence when talking fails. He is an odd duck and not always a nice person. War is often the next step after diplomacy fails, but not always.
DeleteBrabender doesn’t deserve to be remembered as violent when he was not.
DeleteAsk yourself why Somerby refers to him as 'Professor Brabender'. Then maybe you'll understand Somerby's meaning.
DeleteIs there a prediction market wager on who kicks off first, Trump or Somerby?
ReplyDeleteDavid in Cal.
DeleteRacism suddenly disappeared in 1965. We all know that.
ReplyDeleteRelevance?
DeleteRelevance? Have you been reading Somerby’s posts over the past couple of weeks? The whole argument about majority minority districts being wiped out by the Callais decision bring a return to Jim Crow…oh never mind.
DeleteArmchair legal “scholars” know that the language of the VRA is unclear. Somehow, our “judges” keep finding racial discrimination, even though it’s all just partisanship.
ReplyDeleteCecelia has entered the chat.
ReplyDelete'Joe Biden’s Disastrous Debate With Trump ‘Frightened’ Jill Biden
ReplyDeleteThe former first lady said in a CBS News interview she thought her husband was “having a stroke.”'
Looks like the dastardly New York Times even fooled Jill.
It's not Jill Biden's job to question the mental cognition of Presidential candidates, even if they are hallucinating in public about a national epidemic of post-birth abortions.
DeleteSince when has the NY Times cared about the (mental) health of politicians?
DeleteHeather Cox Richardson should have called her and told her, as she told her readers, that Joe simply had a cold.
DeleteIf he had a stroke, he made a miraculous recovery.
DeleteAt least Joe ain't a fucking nasty ignoramus like Demented Donnie? Did we win that war on day won when we obliterated them nukes nine months ago Donnie. Jesus you people got to focus on the fucking demented President in the hand, not in the Busch. Weirdos.
DeleteThat was a bad night for Biden. Polls were already saying a majority of people in his own party didn't even want him to run again. So it was like, what's the point of this idiot even running for a second term? Then he proves to the whole country on national television that he's too old for the job.
DeleteYou're the post birth abortion!
DeleteJustice Department launches a criminal investigation into Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll
ReplyDeleteBecause fuck you, what are you going to do about it.
Keep in mind when the fucking media refers to Trump's fucking Justice Department, the fucking media means Trump's fucking lawyer.
Good luck to the sacrificial lamb Blanche sends into court with this bullshit. The judge will not be gentle.
DeleteAre you claiming that some local judge is going to tell King Orange Chickenshit what he can and cannot do? Pshaw!
DeleteAnyone catch the latest debasement of what we laughingly call the executive Cabinet? Truly something North Korea would be proud of
And now, a 10 billion filing (again!) against the WSJ because the birthday card they published hurt his reputation and, it is claimed by Trump, was fake, even though it was found in Epstein’s possessions. Thrown out the first time, for lack of evidence that it affected his reputation. For reputational damage Trump might as well sue himself.
Delete"Are you claiming that some local judge is going to tell King Orange Chickenshit what he can and cannot do?"
DeleteThe jurisdiction is New York City.
That’s even worse. New Yorkers aren’t even real Americans
Delete"Good luck trying to understand or explain what that torrent of new language actually meant."
ReplyDeleteOh, Hokey Pete! It really isn't hard.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.
This is a direct and broad warning to legislators in former Confederate states that rigging elections against black voters won't be tolerated.
The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered
One way (out of many!) that we'll check on this is looking at whether black candidates even have a prayer of winning.
nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.
...and no, it's not a quota so don't even think about starting that bullshit.
Done.
Also, "protected class"?
DeleteDoes section a) of this law protect classes of voters? It does! It very plainly says that citizens can't have their rights denied or abridged on the basis of race or color. Why shouldn't later revisions to that law make reference to the "classes" that are protected?
Above is from me, Q in a B
DeleteKing Orange Chickenshit is building a MMA arena on the White House Lawn in honor of himself
ReplyDeleteBecause fuck you, what are you going to do about it.
"Because fuck you, what are you going to do about it."
DeleteGuillotines.
Yup, start making a list
DeleteWe need to use the guillotine on the enablers first, so the blade is sufficiently dulled when we use it on the leaders.
DeleteWhy is Somerby’s tone treated as more scandalous than the broader political system producing racial fragmentation?
ReplyDeleteGood point.
DeleteSomerby's no more a bigoted Right-winger, than those who are keeping black people from representation in our political system.
Good point.
DeleteSomerby's no more a bigoted Right-winger, than those who are keeping black people from representation in our political system.
If E. Jeanne Carroll didn't want to be hounded by Right-wing lawfare, she shouldn't have been raped by P:resident teeny tiny hands.
ReplyDelete