Readers Write: Voting rights, the power of the presidency, disability benefits

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The observation by Chief Justice John Roberts that “our country has changed” is a harbinger for the Supreme Court eviscerating what remains of the 1965 Voting Rights Act after the justices, led by the chief, have methodically shredded the landmark legislation designed to remove electoral barriers for Black people and people of other marginalized races (“Is this the final straw for Voting Rights Act?” Oct. 15).

The chief justice’s observation, made more than a decade ago in a case previously retrenching Black voting rights in the South, resonates loudly as the justices are poised to give the 60-year-old law the coup de grace in the case titled Louisiana v. Callais, which they heard on Wednesday. The Roberts-led majority is apparently going to bar legislative bodies or lower courts from devising electoral districts aimed at providing opportunity for equitable representation by Black people roughly proportionate to their presence in the population.

While the right wing of the court is keen on adapting to modernity when it comes to voting by minorities, it has no hesitancy following the lead of Justice Clarence Thomas and his uber-extreme conservatives in using “historic tradition” in striking down various gun safety regulations under the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.” They have used that talismanic recitation to invalidate legislative restrictions that were not in effect at the time of the writing of the Constitution in 1787, which is nearly all of them.

For Thomas and his fellow travelers on the court, when it comes to gun safety the country has not — and cannot — conform to modern realities or “change” at all from the conditions that existed 238 years ago.

Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis

•••

I am following with great interest the Supreme Court case regarding Louisiana redistricting. And I have a proposal for a constitutional amendment.

Here’s what we do: Start at the northern border of every state. Go south until you get to the exact spot in population to equal one congressional district. Draw a straight line, east to west. Voilà, you have the first congressional district for that state. Keep going south to the next precise population boundary, draw another straight line across. District 2.

If a state has 35 districts, make 34 cuts. Some will be super-narrow, some will be fat. All will have perfectly straight boundaries on the top and bottom. Redraw them every 10 years.

No commissions, no politics, just surveyors and demographers.

So our representatives would be accountable to a wildly different set of voters every 10 years. Only a small wedge of the first district population from the north would be included in the new first district to the west. It would be de facto term limits.

Just a thought ...

Harry Kelley, St. Louis Park

A quote in an Oct. 12 column states, “President [Donald] Trump has more power than any president ever had, but Democrats will have the power to use it next” (“We’re all at risk when constitutional guardrails fall,” Strib Voices). But I’ll bet that Republicans are confident that the next Democratic president will lack the audacity to abuse their power the way Trump has. And if they try, Republicans won’t simply shrug and say, “fair is fair,” now, will they?

The next Democratic administration will face a dilemma: Imitate Trump in abusing power, or implement new checks on presidential power, thus tying its own hands. There seem to be a couple of cycles in politics that play out concurrently: One is the cycle of abuse of power/checks on power and the other is the cycle of alternating Republican/Democratic administrations. I recall a Clinton-era political cartoon where a White House tour guide showed the Cabinet room where there was an extra chair for the independent counsel assigned to investigate each Cabinet secretary. Well, the Independent Counsel Statute was later abolished, just in time for the Bush-Cheney administration to abuse their power with minimal oversight. And then when Obama came along, the crackdown on presidential power started all over again.

Patrick McCauley, Edina

•••

In the interest of perspective, I was a lifelong registered Republican voter until 2016. I cast my first ballot as an eligible member of the electorate for Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election. I supported what I considered to be moderate Republican causes throughout the succeeding years. That all changed in 2016. Winston Churchill once humorously described a person estranged from the truth as a purveyor of “terminological inexactitudes.” Over the past few years, we have had completely unsupported claims of a stolen 2020 election, the imposition of tariffs on friends and foes alike justified under the specious notion that manufacturing jobs will be returned to the U.S. and a wide-ranging host of other “terminological inexactitudes.” The latest doozies being sold by the current president and his army of sycophants are that there is no inflation and that scientific evidence can be discounted or ignored.

I don’t understand MAGA, or how the Trump faithful will determine when its hazy goals have been achieved. I only know that for this retired 71-year-old, I’ll be thrilled to simply have us achieve MTRA — Making the Truth Required Again.

Paul Samony, Bloomington

I was dismayed to read the front-page article in the Oct. 7 edition of the Star Tribune that the Trump administration is taking steps to make it even more difficult for people with serious physical or mental issues to qualify for Social Security disability benefits (“Trump plan targets disability benefits”). It is a difficult process now to navigate. Making it even more difficult is heartless and demeaning to those who suffer from disabilities that prevent them from holding down normal jobs.

Fred Morris, Minneapolis

With an important election just weeks away, the League of Women Voters is pleased to report that Minneapolis voting machines are accurate. Following the 2024 election, ballots from randomly selected precincts across the state were hand-counted to determine whether the paper ballot totals matched totals reported by the voting machines. LWV volunteers observed that process to ensure compliance. Most Hennepin County voting machines matched the hand count total exactly or were off by no more than two. The Post Election Review report (lwvmn.org/per) results should reassure voters that our voting process is accurate, transparent and reliable.

Rebecca Thoman, Minneapolis