Local Voices: How Weakening the Voting Rights Act Could Hurt Hagerstown and Washington Co.

Radio Free Hub City encourages the community to participate by submitting their own thoughts regarding local issues that matter, regardless of political affiliation or views. This letter was recently submitted to us in response to a pending Supreme Court case on redistricting. These views do not reflect the opinions of Radio Free Hub City or its clients or sponsors.

I. When the Supreme Court Begins to Tilt the Scales

In Old Chief v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court itself made one thing clear: even when evidence is relevant, a judge must weigh its probative value against its prejudicial effect. If the prejudice substantially outweighs the value, the evidence must be excluded. That’s not theory — that’s the foundation of fairness in every courtroom across this country.

Yet as we saw in yesterday’s oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, that same balance seems to be slipping away. Reports from Politico, Reuters, and SCOTUSBlog show several justices questioning whether any race-conscious mapmaking should exist at all under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito asked whether states should ever use race in redistricting. Justice Kavanaugh pressed whether protections like Section 2 should “sunset.” Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett appeared cautious, but their questions suggested the Court could be moving toward narrowing — if not dismantling — the law’s reach.

No ruling has been issued yet — but the direction is clear. Instead of weighing evidence, they’re tilting the scale. Instead of asking what protects the integrity of voting — the “probative value” of democracy itself — the conversation focused on an imagined “prejudice” against the majority that has no data, no measurable harm, and no constitutional injury to support it.

That isn’t law; it’s posture. And when posture replaces principle, justice begins to decay.

What they call “neutrality” is really privilege pretending to be principle — discomfort from those who’ve always had power seeing others finally get a fair shot. Every real judge knows that law must correct imbalance. The question isn’t whether some prejudice exists — it’s whose prejudice serves justice, and whose undermines it.

---

II. Equality Requires Correction, Not Neutrality

Think about it like this: the same way Title IX protects women’s sports by correcting a historical imbalance, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects minority voters by correcting political imbalance. Both laws were created for the same reason — to fix systems that excluded entire groups of people.

The Supreme Court has already said as much. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court ruled that law can’t stay “neutral” when neutrality protects segregation. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed this in United States v. Virginia (1996), writing that the Constitution allows “remedial measures that advance the full development of talent and capacity of all citizens.” Acknowledging difference to create fairness isn’t discrimination — it’s justice by design.

So when people argue that Section 2 is “unfair” because it considers race, they’re using the same logic that could one day erase Title IX protections for women’s sports. If one falls, the other does too. Both exist because ignoring difference makes inequality permanent.

---

III. The Myth of Law-and-Order Neutrality

Those who shout “law and order” need to understand what law actually demands. Law cannot be applied neutrally — it must resolve a case or controversy. That means there’s always an imbalance to fix and a wrong to be made right. Calling that correction “bias” is misunderstanding justice itself.

When the Court claims it’s merely being “color-blind,” it’s not enforcing law and order — it’s eroding it. Because a law that refuses to see the harm in front of it can’t correct it. And a justice system that confuses privilege for neutrality becomes a danger to the very order it claims to protect.

---

IV. The Warning from the Bench Itself

The Supreme Court’s own members — across generations — have warned against this illusion of color-blindness:

• Justice Harry Blackmun (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978):“In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013, dissent):“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
• Justice Stephen Breyer (Parents Involved v. Seattle School District, 2007, dissent):He warned that striking down voluntary, race-conscious school plans “threaten[s] the promise of Brown.”
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 2014, dissent):“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes wide open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”

Each of these justices understood that pretending to be color-blind while inequality persists is not justice — it’s abdication. Real fairness doesn’t erase difference; it confronts it.

---

V. When Courts Follow Agendas Instead of Balance

When the Supreme Court rules on some protections but ignores others — when its decisions align neatly with political goals rather than constitutional logic — it betrays its own duty.

Even the Court itself said in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) that judges must step aside when there’s even a “serious risk of actual bias.” Justice Kennedy wrote, “No man can be a judge in his own cause.”

So when this Court calls remedial protections “discrimination” while defending privileges of the majority, it’s no longer weighing evidence — it’s advancing an agenda. That is not impartiality; that’s selective justice.

And once the Supreme Court stops weighing justice and starts defending comfort, it ceases to be the guardian of law — and becomes the author of injustice.

---

VI. The Power of Showing Up

In moments like this, silence is not neutrality. Choosing not to participate sends its own message — one that says, I’m comfortable being unseen; I accept being unheard.

A “no vote,” or staying home when decisions about representation are on the line, can do more lasting harm to a community’s influence than even voting for someone whose views you disagree with.

Because community, at its heart, is about participation — about people joining together to shape their shared future. Every voice that goes missing weakens that bond. Every ballot cast strengthens it. The test before Hagerstown, and before the nation, is whether we will surrender that power or stand together to use it.

---

Eric Van Buren

Democratic Candidate for Maryland State Senate, District 2 (Hagerstown & Washington County)

Author of The Art of Winning Litigation and The Journey of the Dog, the Frog, and the Hog

Radio Free Hub City encourages the community to participate by submitting their own thoughts regarding local issues that matter, regardless of political affiliation or views. Please contact us if you’d like to comment on a local matter important to you.

---