Justices’ ‘Disturbing’ Ruling in South Carolina Gerrymandering Case

To the Editor:

Re “In Top Court, G.O.P. Prevails on Voting Map” (front page, May 24):

The action of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, anchoring the 6-to-3 decision to allow the South Carolina Legislature to go forward with redistricting plans that clearly marginalize African American representation in the state — and after a meticulous review by an appellate court to preclude the plan — is disturbing.

The persistent erosion of voting rights and apparent denial that racism is still part of the fabric of American society are troubling.

Surely there can be deference to decisions made by states; concocting “intent” to deny true representative justice in an apparent quest to return to the “Ozzie and Harriet” days of the 1950s seems too transparent an attempt to “keep America white again” — as they may perceive the challenge of changing demographics.

This particular ruling cries out for the need to expand court membership.

Raymond Coleman
Potomac, Md.

To the Editor:

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito presumes the South Carolina lawmakers acted “in good faith” in gerrymandering the voting district map for the purpose of favoring the Republicans, and not for racial reasons, an improbable rationale on its face.

Astoundingly, he further reasons that the gerrymander is acceptable because it was for partisan rather than race-based reasons (acknowledging that redistricting based on race “may be held unconstitutional.”)