Another Shockingly Loony Opinion From Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas testifying before Congress in 2011 (image courtesy Getty Images/Alex Wong)
Clarence Thomas testifying before Congress in 2011 (image courtesy Getty Images/Alex Wong)

Two months ago, Clarence Thomas opened his mouth during a regular Supreme Court session for the first time in more than a decade–and embarrassed both himself and the Court by suggesting that people convicted of domestic violence shouldn’t lose their right to own a gun. Well, Thomas embarrassed himself again on Monday. In Thomas’ opinion, state legislatures ought to have the right to draw districts any way they please–even if certain groups of voters get the shaft.

Thomas voted with the other seven justices to turn back an attempt to require states to draw districts based on the number of eligible voters rather than total population. Had states been required to only consider the number of eligible voters in a district, it would have dramatically increased the voting power of rural areas at the expense of urban areas and minorities. However, Thomas issued a concurring opinion that indicated he didn’t think the appellants went far enough.

As most of us know, the basic principle in redistricting is “one person, one vote”–that is, congressional and state legislative districts must be as equal in population as possible. However, Thomas’ concurrence leaves me asking the same question I asked when he dissented from the decision that made marriage equality the law of the land–“Did this guy fall asleep or cheat in history class at some point in high school or at Holy Cross?” He claimed–with a straight face–that “his Court has never provided a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle.”

Um, Clarence? What about the Fourteenth Amendment? It is well-established that the Equal Protection Clause forbids states from giving voters in one region less voting power than voters in another. But Thomas harrumphs–again, with a straight face–that there is no “single, comprehensive theory of representation” in the Constitution.” Therefore, requiring states to give voters the same amount of voting power usurps “important value judgments that the Constitution reserves to the people.”

Thomas then reveals what those “important value judgments” ought to be–the need to “control factions that would legislate against the common good” by putting safeguards in place to “counter majoritarian checks.” He argues that states ought to have the latitude to put a thumb on the scale in disputes that “pit urban areas versus rural, manufacturing versus agriculture, or those with property versus those without.” When Ian Milhiser of Think Progress read this, he couldn’t help but notice how similar it was to something the Koch brothers tried to foist on North Carolina’s public school students.

What makes this opinion even more breathtaking in its lunacy is that Thomas claims that the Court has no right to “impose its own theory of democracy” on the states. And yet, in the same breath, he addresses two of the most egregious examples of malapportionment prior to “one person, one vote” becoming the law of the land. Alabama and Tennessee both went over 60 years without reapportioning their legislatures. As a result, a voter in rural Alabama had up to 40 times the voting power of a voter in Birmingham, while a voter in rural Tennessee had some 10 times the voting power of a voter in Memphis.

If Thomas were to have his way, the courts would have no right to “impose its own theory of democracy,” as these gross distortions serve to “control factions that would legislate against the common good.” I don’t think I need to tell you how outrageous this is.

That rumbling sound you probably heard when Thomas delivered his opinion was of Thurgood Marshall turning in his grave. After all, the seat Marshall occupied with so much distinction for a quarter-century has been disgraced–again.

Darrell is a 30-something graduate of the University of North Carolina who considers himself a journalist of the old school. An attempt to turn him into a member of the religious right in college only succeeded in turning him into the religious right's worst nightmare--a charismatic Christian who is an unapologetic liberal. His desire to stand up for those who have been scared into silence only increased when he survived an abusive three-year marriage. You may know him on Daily Kos as Christian Dem in NC. Follow him on Twitter @DarrellLucus or connect with him on Facebook. Click here to buy Darrell a Mello Yello.