Today is the 100th anniversary of the detonation of a bomb on Wall Street that killed 38 people & injured hundreds others. The perpetrators were never found, but the bombing would have both immediate & long consequences. 1/
For one thing, the bombing also would prove to be a boon to the career of an ambitious young FBI agent named J. Edgar Hoover, who at the time headed the DOJ’s so-called Radical Division. 2/
The bombing also would play into the anti-immigrant mood of the nation because almost immediately the search for a suspect turned to immigrants - Italian anarchists in particular but in the wake of the Russian Revolution also Jewish & other eastern European immigrants. 3/
Just four days after the bombing, the Washington Post published an incendiary editorial talking about how the bombing showed that “alien scum from the cesspools & sewers of the Old World” were destroying American democracy. 4/
The Post editorial in the wake of the Wall Street bombing also laminated the failure of efforts to restrict immigration but hoped that the next Congress would take action. 5/
A few months later, incoming vice president Calvin Coolidge joined the chorus for immigration restrictions in an article published in Good Housekeeping. Among his reasons was that “biological laws tell us certain divergent people will not mix or blend.” 6/
All this played right into the hands of Congressman Albert Johnson (R-WA), chair of the Immigration and Naturalization Committee and a notorious racist & anti-Semite, who had been pushing for immigration restrictions for some time. 7/
And in May 1921, Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act which not only cut immigration by more than 2/3 but for the first time imposed quotas for each country. The act passed with little dissent, winning 90 votes in the Senate & passing without a recorded vote in the House. 8/
Those quotas would cut immigration from Poland by 70% and from Italy by 82%. Though they were only temporary, they would be made permanent and even more restrictive in 1924 - marking a 45 period in which the US saw almost no immigration. 9/
Fyi, remnants of the bombing still can be seen on the side of the old J.P. Morgan building on Wall Street in lower Manhattan - a defiant J.P. Morgan refused to have them removed. 10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Meanwhile, in the Louisiana redistricting case, a bit of a dispute over whether Black plaintiffs will be allowed to submit an updated proposal for creating a second Black congressional district. (They submitted the one below in June 2022 before SCOTUS put the case on hold.)
The plaintiffs say that allowing them to submit a new proposal for a remedial map would the map to reflect data from recent elections and also give them a chance to try to address concerns raised by the state to the earlier proposed map.
They also propose that the state be given the chance to submit its own proposal for a remedial map after having declined to offer a proposal in June 2022. With the remedial hearing not until Oct 3-5, they say there is plenty of time for new maps to be proposed, discovery, etc.
In my time, I’ve seen some really brazen redistricting moves, but never something as breathtaking as what just happened in Alabama. Open defiance by a legislature of a federal court ruling that could not have been more clear about what it required.
To recap: SCOTUS ruled in June that the current Alabama congressional map (below) violates the Voting Rights Act because it divides heavily Black parts of the state up in a way that ensures Black voters can elect their preferred candidates in only 1 of 7 districts (District 7).
The ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a robust affirmation of the nearly 40 year old framework for deciding challenges to maps under Section 2 of VRA & upheld a unanimous trial court decision ordering Alabama to create a second Black congressional district.
There’s a little bit of confusion about what the map process of redrawing Alabama’s congressional map requires and how various laws interact. A thread 🧵 to break it down a bit. 1/
First, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does *not* require that Alabama necessarily draw a second majority-Black congressional district. Instead, what Alabama is required to do is remedy the vote dilution that court found in Black Belt region of the state. 2/
To be sure, a Black majority district is one way to remedy that vote dilution and as the district court found it would be pretty impossible in AL to remedy that vote dilution - given the high rates of racially polarized voting - without a district that is near Black majority. 3/
🚨BREAKING: The North Carolina Supreme Court has reversed its earlier rulings finding that partisan gerrymandering violates the state constitution. appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&…
Decision is 5-2 with Justices Earls and Morgan dissenting.
The decision is bad on the merits. But it also is bad because casually chucking out precedent is *not* what courts are supposed to do. If the NC legislature disagreed that gerrymandering violates the state constitution, its remedy was to propose a constitutional amendment.
Well, the Harper v. Hall argument is over - and I have so many thoughts. But I’ll start with a couple of quotes from Justice Earls & Justice Morgan encapsulate how crazy the legislature’s pro-gerrymandering position is. 1/
First, from Justice Morgan in response to NC lawmakers’ contention that the NC Constitution doesn’t speak to fair maps: “Well, it does say elections shall be free - and free elections inherently contemplate fair elections.” 2/
And then from Justice Earls in response to the lawyer for NC lawmakers’ contention that the remedy for unfair maps is one for the people, not courts:
“But how can it be left up to the people when the maps pre-determine the results.” 3/
Redistricting & the fight for fair maps return to the fore Tuesday when the North Carolina Supreme Court takes up a request by GOP lawmakers to have the court throw out precedents holding that partisan gerrymandering violates the NC Constitution. A thread 🧵 1/
First, to set the table, North Carolina is one of eight states where since 2018 state courts have enforced limits on partisan gerrymandering in state law - striking down both Democratic-drawn & Republican-drawn maps. 2/
Indeed, ever since SCOTUS ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable in federal court, there has been an explosion of cases under the broader, often much more explicit democratic guarantees in state constitutions. 3/