Postracial Presumptions: The Supreme Court’s Undoing of the Voting Rights Act through Racial Ignorance

IF 1.1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Rhetoric Society Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-03-15 DOI:10.1080/02773945.2022.2129764
Christopher Earle
{"title":"Postracial Presumptions: The Supreme Court’s Undoing of the Voting Rights Act through Racial Ignorance","authors":"Christopher Earle","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2022.2129764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To warrant the weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has actively manufactured ignorance of racism in the realm of voting. Through an analysis of majority opinions in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Abbott v. Perez (2018), and cases concerning states’ antivoting fraud restrictions, I demonstrate how considerable evidence of racial discrimination is deemed to fail the standard of proof imposed by the court. I offer the term postracial presumption to account for how dominant publics are empowered to reason as if the United States was beyond race, to employ postracial premises to warrant judgments for which there is insufficient evidence and, indeed, for which there is considerable disconfirming evidence. The essay demonstrates how presumption and proof burdens can be critical tools in the study of postracism and is suggestive of how racial ignorance cannot simply be rectified by more proof.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2022.2129764","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT To warrant the weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has actively manufactured ignorance of racism in the realm of voting. Through an analysis of majority opinions in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Abbott v. Perez (2018), and cases concerning states’ antivoting fraud restrictions, I demonstrate how considerable evidence of racial discrimination is deemed to fail the standard of proof imposed by the court. I offer the term postracial presumption to account for how dominant publics are empowered to reason as if the United States was beyond race, to employ postracial premises to warrant judgments for which there is insufficient evidence and, indeed, for which there is considerable disconfirming evidence. The essay demonstrates how presumption and proof burdens can be critical tools in the study of postracism and is suggestive of how racial ignorance cannot simply be rectified by more proof.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后种族推定:最高法院因种族无知而撤销《投票权法案》
摘要为了保证1965年《投票权法》的弱化,最高法院的保守派多数派积极制造对投票领域种族主义的无知。通过分析谢尔比县诉霍尔德案(2013年)、阿博特诉佩雷斯案(2018年)以及各州反投票欺诈限制案件中的多数意见,我证明了大量种族歧视证据被认为不符合法院规定的证明标准。我提出“后种族推定”一词是为了解释占主导地位的公众如何有权像美国超越种族一样推理,如何利用后种族前提来保证没有足够证据的判决,事实上,有相当多的不确凿证据。这篇文章展示了推定和证明负担如何成为研究后种族主义的关键工具,并暗示了种族无知如何不能简单地通过更多的证据来纠正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
What Can a Body Do?: How We Meet the Built World A Forum on Neurorhetorics: Conscious of the Past, Mindful of the Future Nestwork: New Material Rhetorics for Precarious Species Ambient Engineering: Hyper-Nudging, Hyper-Relevance, and Rhetorics of Nearness and Farness in a Post-AI Algorithmic World Conspiracy Theater of the Absurd: “Birds Aren’t Real” as Parodic Hypermimesis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1