GOP house gains in 2012?

[DrScholl]

I think people are putting a little too much faith in the Obama Justice Department. Supreme Court not to strike down this racist, anachronistic, incumbent-protection law once and for all.   We have a black President.  It's time.

It's not racist at all, the law is to prevent minority votes from being diluted. In fact, Republicans benefit from it more because it packs Democrats together and prevents competitive races. Republicans have pushed it more than anyone.

[DrScholl]

The assumptions of that section of the Voting Rights Act are inherently racist because they assume race is the most important, overriding factor of all when it comes to creating districts.  Blacks vote for blacks.  Whites vote for whites.  Nothing else matters except race.  It's demeaning, actually.

With the election of a black President, those provisions are well past their due date.  I don't care which party benefits.  Less incumbent protection and more competitive are good things.  And that would be one good side effect from getting rid of it.

Black votes used to be very diluted in the South, deliberately so and it's a protection to assure that overly ambition legislatures don't attempt to dilute voters.

[DrScholl]

It's 2010, not 1965.  Louisiana and South Carolina both have a minority Governor/Governor-Elect.  The President is black.   Those provisions of the Voting Rights Act have run their course.  Its only purpose now is to automatically keep incumbents in power in heavily Gerrymandered districts - which is a bad thing.

It doesn't matter what the race of those Governors are, they could very well be capable of diluting minority voting strength for partisan reasons. There are strict regulations in place for a reason, because some politicians cannot be trusted to be fair, they have to be checked by the law. Just because the President is black doesn't mean the Voting Rights act should be thrown out.