Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court

The scientist in me has some early thoughts on this morning's Supreme Court decision re the Voting Rights Act.  Warning:  this is obviously an issue some will see as political.  Click down only if you're okay with that.




I actually have a hard time disagreeing with the intent of the Voting Rights Act ruling.  As a scientist, why is it reasonable to throw 40-year-old data at a problem that's still present?  We wouldn't go to the Moon with another Apollo computer (which ran at 4 MHz, not 3.4 MHz)...or any of a half-dozen other examples.  At least I wouldn't.  Give me the best, most current data and analysis money can provide.

Off-topic: I doubt this Congress would ever be able to agree on a revision to the VRA formula that was struck down.  That's why they just passed a revision of the old law mostly intact.  Any chance of them revisiting Section 4, as Chief Justice Roberts encouraged, is wishful thinking at best.

Let's state one very clear fact:  racism and bigotry are still alive and well in the South.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying.  Just last year, a voter ID law in Texas was struck down and the Arizona "proof of citizenship" requirement was struck down by the Supreme Court just this month.  Things are the same.  But, anyone who says the situation is exactly the same as it was 1-2 generations ago is also lying.  Specifically thinking about voting rights, there are no longer literacy requirements or lengthy residence requirements.  Many states have "motor voter laws" now, making registration easier.  Things are also becoming different.

There should be a way to reflect that in how we prevent discrimination against our citizens.  I don't know what the right way is, but living in the past and relying on information from the 1970s isn't it.  America is smarter than that.

Disclaimer:  this is a sort-of scientific view of the issue.  As I implied above, politics doesn't often lend itself to an appreciation of data-driven outcomes.  And, the effects of the decision will be more far-reaching than "Congress needs to create a new formula." That's one reason this decision is much more activist than meets the eye.  My philosophy is that current reality matters--and as I said above, this Congress (and probably none in the next generation) will be able to agree on a new VRA formula.  Striking down a law that has no hope of being revised just...smells.

So my original question just below the fold is, sadly, much more hypothetical than anything else.  If there's no acceptable way to incorporate new data into a problem, the old data may just be the best we had.  As a scientist, that saddens the hell out of me.