Lies the government told you by Andrew Napolitano (best e reader for epub TXT) 📗

what is called ‘the common good.’” By engaging in racial gerrymandering, legislatures are operating under the false and dangerous premise that all members of a particular race will support a similar candidate, and promoting collectivist ideals, thus “chaining” individuals to their respective races.

The right to vote in America is an individual right, not a collective one; one may vote because one is a citizen, and at least eighteen years old, not because one belongs to a group the membership in which is some immutable characteristic of birth. On Election Day, we select our representatives by secret ballot, and we choose our candidates based on their ability to protect our individual rights, not the rights of the group of people with which we most closely identify. (Though surely, many voters are more interested in voting for a Robin Hood than a Thomas Jefferson.) Most of us choose not to reveal the candidates we voted for, and it is considered rude to ask another directly how he or she voted.

Racial gerrymandering takes the individual out of the voting process, and divides large groups of individuals into smaller voting blocs based on race. Legislatures create “majority-minority” districts to ensure that the African-American community, or the Hispanic community, or the Italian-American or Irish-American or Jewish-American communities receive fair representation, not the individual African-American or Hispanic or Italian-American or Irish-American or Jewish-American voter. It is true that certain groups typically vote the same way, but it is not a government’s job to assume that the “common good” will be served if it artificially groups people so as essentially to rig election results. Individuals should decide, and let the chips fall where they may.

If the purpose of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments was to remove race from the government’s weapons, racial gerrymandering has nullified that purpose.

An “Unpopular” Decision

I opened this chapter with one of the most contentious voting events of our history, where the Supreme Court essentially decided the result of the 2000 presidential election. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore is so disheartening not because Vice President Al Gore received over 539,000 more popular votes than Governor Bush, but because the Supreme Court disregarded not only the fundamental right to vote, and in turn kept us from discovering the true winner (whoever it may have been),50 but it assaulted federalism by denying the State of Florida the ability to manage its mechanisms of voting and interpreting its own laws.

The contested 2000 presidential election involved a series of legal proceedings. For the purpose of this discussion, we’ll pick up the story in early December 2000. At this point, the Secretary of State of Florida, Katherine Harris, had certified the election for Governor Bush. On December 4th 2000, in the case of Gore v. Harris, a local judge in Tallahassee, Florida, upheld Harris’s certification, and rejected any further recounts, concluding that a recount would make no difference. Gore appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which on December 8th, ordered a manual recount of all “undervotes” that had not yet been counted. An “undervote” in the context of this case was a ballot where the counting machine failed to register a preference in the race. Approximately 60,000 Florida undervotes were outstanding at this time. Bush then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to stay the recount. The Court, ruling by 5 to 4, granted the stay and heard oral arguments on the merits of the case on December 11th. On December 12th, the Supreme Court decided, again 5 to 4, to stop the recounts because the standards applied in the recounts were not uniform across the state, and would result in unequal treatment of votes and thus fundamental unfairness.51

The Court’s decision to hear this case stemmed from the majority’s political affiliation; their self-interest in the election cannot be denied. Each of the five justices in the majority, to different extents, was affiliated, or had been affiliated, with the Republican Party. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a native Arizonan, is a Republican who typically referred to Republicans as “we” and “us.”52 She served three terms in the Arizona State Senate and also served as co-chairperson of the Arizona state committee to elect Richard Nixon president.53 O’Connor was also an old friend of the Bush family.54 She played tennis with Barbara Bush, and admired George W. Bush.55 In fact, she spent election night at a party hosted by Republicans, and was heard saying, “This is terrible,” when the networks had called the election for Gore.56 According to her husband, Sandra was ready to retire to Arizona, but did not want to give up her seat to a Democratic president.57

Chief Justice William Rehnquist campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and in 1962, provided legal advice to Republicans working to challenge Democratic voters’ credentials at a Phoenix, Arizona, polling station.58

Justice Anthony Kennedy was considered a “Sacramento lawyer-lobbyist,” who voluntarily traveled the State of California campaigning for then-Governor Ronald Reagan’s anti-tax initiative.59

Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife worked for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization, to manage Bush’s transition to the White House.60

Two of Justice Antonin Scalia’s sons worked for law firms representing George W. Bush.61 I mean this thumbnail personal, political history not as an assault on the Republican members of the Court, some of whom—at this writing—I am privileged to call personal friends. And I cannot overlook the pre-judicial Democratic political activities of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer. And I am mindful of the incendiary admission of Justice William O. Douglas that “up there [at the Supreme Court] no one is neutral.”62 Nevertheless, whether the justices’ intentions were good or bad, pure or impure, constitutional or political, Bush v. Gore was an assault on federalism and freedom.

The justices’ political motivation was also evident from the decision itself. Conservative judges typically claim to have a strong belief in the concept of federalism, and want us to believe that they will exercise deference to state governments when applicable. They also tend to assail liberal “activist” judges