Late last month, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional map was unconstitutional because, according to The New York Times, it “improperly considered race to create a majority Black district.” The court ruled in a 6–3 decision, one that some say is a major blow to the Voting Rights Act and others say preserves the integrity of a level playing field for elections.
The Bulletin’s producer and moderator Clarissa Moll sat down with Warren Cole Smith, veteran journalist and editor in chief at Ministry Watch, to understand this decision from a Christian perspective. Here are edited excerpts of the conversation from episode 276.
What did the Supreme Court decide last week?
The court’s decision makes it less likely that states will be able to create majority-minority districts. Some of those majority-minority districts, for example in North Carolina, have created very strangely shaped districts. It’s the classic example of gerrymandering. A lot of folks think that this decision will be an improvement, that it takes radical gerrymandered districts out or makes them less likely.
The Constitution says that you can’t consider race, but you can consider politics. In our current era, politics and race are often proxies for the other. You can say, “Well, we’re not considering race, we’re only considering politics,” but it’s kind of disingenuous to say that. The Supreme Court decision does seem to be more in line with the Constitution, which says that you cannot consider race.
In 1960, about 35 percent of Blacks voted for the Republican Party and about 65 percent voted for the Democrats. Today, about 90 percent of Blacks vote for the Democratic Party. This era, post Civil Rights Act of 1964 and post Voting Rights Act of 1965, is much more polarized and much more likely to gerrymander.
I think those that are concerned about this ruling really have to ask the question, How could it get any worse? There are, by some estimates, only about 15 competitive House races out of 435 in this country. Even generous assessments say that no more than 35 of them are competitive. It’s hard to figure out how this could be any worse in terms of the polarization of our country.
It’s also not clear yet whether this is going to have any negative impact on minority representation in Congress. It could possibly improve it. We just don’t know yet.
Is there a fairer way to draw out districting boundaries that we need to consider?
The districting or redistricting process is inherently a political process. It was designed by the federal Constitution and most state constitutions to be that way. So you’re never going to take the politics out of it, and probably shouldn’t. The voice of the people, the voice of the political process, should probably carry a lot of weight.
On the other hand, there have been some attempts, at least at the academic level, to use statistics, to let a computer draw the map, and then present a rough draft to the legislature and let them make the final decision. Would that be fairer? I’m not sure. We might have to get comfortable with this inherently political, and therefore inherently messy, process and learn to play with our friends in the sandbox a little bit better than we have been for the last 30 years.
Is there a Christian “via media” here, based on biblical principles?
As far as a via media goes—a middle way—I’m not sure. A higher way, perhaps.
There are some biblical principles at work here. Every single person is created in the image of God. In our political process, that means, among other things, that everybody gets a voice. And that idea, which is a fundamentally democratic ideal, is rooted in the biblical principle of the imago dei.
The Bible talks about justice and impartiality, that unjust weights are an abomination to the Lord (Prov. 20:23). That is an important principle as well for the protection of the vulnerable. Civil rights don’t exist to protect the rights of the majority. They exist to keep the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority, the poor, the vulnerable.
I would also argue that, especially for Christians who don’t want to get involved in politics, politics can be a wonderful tool that allows Christians to love their neighbor. All of these biblical principles, fundamentally Christian in their origin, should be informing this conversation.
What that doesn’t mean, though, is that because of these biblical principles the 6–3 ruling of the Supreme Court was right or was wrong. We have to wrestle with these questions with goodwill and consider those that have a different perspective. In this polarized environment, it can be really difficult to do that.
