To the editor: Columnist Jonah Goldberg gives credit on a surface level to both the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which he opines “can pull in opposite directions,” thereby implying that they are in conflict with each other (“Cory Booker should be ashamed of himself,” May 12). But are they?
Does the Equal Protection Clause require that Black voters forfeit the impact of their vote simply because of their address? Congress answered that question with the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. Goldberg counters that the Voting Rights Act was meant to be “transitional,” as if there were some sort of sunset clause inherent within it. And then Goldberg ignores the current and increasing racial hostility by proclaiming that “nothing — nothing — in the court’s decision makes Jim Crow more likely, legal or constitutional.”
If that were not presumptuous and arrogant enough, he stoops to ad hominem attacks against Sen. Cory Booker by accusing him of demagoguery and implying that he is a hypocrite because he is Black and the majority of his constituents are not Black. Where did that come from, other than a desperate attempt to validate the Supreme Court’s Louisiana vs. Callais decision?
Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: While I don’t necessarily align with Goldberg politically, I find his commentary, both in the Los Angeles Times and when he appears on CNN, to be mostly thoughtful and pragmatic. His criticism of Booker’s comments and accompanying argument that the Voting Rights Act does not mandate majority-minority congressional districts are valid. The recent Louisiana vs. Callais decision is nothing more than a logical extension of the 2019 Rucho vs. Common Cause decision, which removed federal judicial oversight of partisan gerrymandering claims. The court’s opinion, however, noted that partisan gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles.
The current redistricting frenzy is a race to the bottom by both parties, while acknowledging that President Trump started the ball rolling with his redistricting request to the Texas governor. The solution to partisan gerrymandering is legislation to mandate independent redistricting commissions, something California had before it was temporarily set aside in response to redistricting in Texas.
Michael Sanders, Los Alamitos
..
To the editor: Lately, I feel numb from the cognitive dissonance. And yet the final question Goldberg poses about why electing a Black senator in a majority non-Black state isn’t the same thing as racially gerrymandering U.S. congressional districts had me sputtering.
The population of the entire state votes for senator (reminder: each state gets two), whereas for U.S. Congress, voters only have the choices offered in their home district. When these districts are artificially gerrymandered, voices and votes are diluted, if not silenced completely. There is a difference between an apple and an orange, even though one could argue they are both fruits.
Paula Rudnick, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: So Booker is elected in New Jersey by both Black and white residents. New Jersey is in the North. The states leading the redistricting efforts to more white-majority districts are in the South. Read your history, and you will understand the regional difference (obviously).
Whether the Supreme Court is intellectually correct or not, I am not convinced it has made the best call at this time and place in our history. By the way, I was raised in the South.
Larry Furman, Woodland Hills
