sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Katharine Moody fears a return to apartheid and a cementing of dictatorship in the land of her birth

Public Policy / opinion
Katharine Moody fears a return to apartheid and a cementing of dictatorship in the land of her birth
sc
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash.

By Katharine Moody*

I come from a long line of progressive conservatives.

In 1920s Canada, my British grandfather sent his children to a French-language Catholic school at a time when fear surrounding a revenge of the cradles was predominant in Canadian society.  He was forward thinking enough to accept the country would become bi-lingual someday and wanted his children be able to participate in that integration. 

And at a time when women were not expected to have a career, he insisted all his daughter’s become nurses as nurses had saved his life during World War I.

One of those daughters, my mother, married my father, a US soldier stationed in Texas in the early 1950s during the Korean War. She was a nurse and became charge nurse of the Emergency Room in San Diego’s main public hospital. 

She implemented a change in patient care which prioritised seeing people in ER based on the urgency of their need, as opposed to the colour of their skin.  And, as if that wasn’t enough to draw attention and ire by parts the white community, she then gave up her seat in the front of a bus to a heavily pregnant black woman during the height of a Texas summer. 

The bus driver stopped the bus on the side of the road but my mother refused to let the woman get up. An argument ensued with the driver, but she stood her ground, holding the frightened pregnant woman down by her shoulder.  As my mother was dressed in uniform at the time, the bus driver complained he would report her to her hospital employer – which he – backed up by his company - did. 

The hospital rang the Air Force base where my father was stationed. They wanted him transferred out of Texas as his wife was “becoming a nuisance”.  As an enlisted soldier, he couldn’t be ordered to transfer, and as he was the base’s lead cryptographer, neither did the officers want to lose him. So, to appease the bus company, the Air Force offered him a transfer to Alaska, at a time  before it had become a US state. The idea being that his wife would never want to live there. However, they took the transfer gladly, both delighted to farewell the Jim Crow south.

Hence, reading this article: The Supreme Court is Illegitimate sent shivers down my spine. The last line of defence, regarding a return to apartheid and a cementing of dictatorship in the land of my birth, has collapsed.  And moreover, none of the six conservative Justices had the guts to sign the order that buried the struggle of millions of black and white Americans before them.

Many outside the US do not realise that the apartheid state in the US was outlawed less than a generation ago. Most associate the civil rights movement with passage of the Voting Right Act 1965, but in fact the struggle against apartheid was far, far more than just that - just as this recent unsigned decision by the Supreme Court is far, far more than just about Alabama’s re-districting map.

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We [the present Supreme Court] seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.”
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, August 2025

To me this latest decision in Allen v. Milligan foretells that this Administration and its racially regressive agenda will always win – not just in the highest court in the land, but more seriously, in federal elections. The upcoming mid-terms will provide no electoral relief as the Administration will not allow that – just as they nearly did not allow that in 2020. 

Now, the unitary executive theory has been brutally embedded in practice; ‘Cheater-in-Chief’ has a full line up of Cabinet and Congressional officials without a moral backbone amongst them; and a bevy of wealthy corporate scoundrels who will pay princely sums to the Calvinball President and the equally illegitimate GOP.

Racial discrimination and prejudice now have an openly, acceptable face in the highest court too, and as the linked article above states;  

“Whatever meagre shred of legitimacy the U.S. Supreme Court had went up in flames with its shadow docket decision allowing Alabama to move forward with a racially discriminatory congressional map with no time for election administrators to prepare.”

The intended “no time” to prepare, bulldozes through decades of precedent under the Purcell principle, ensuring the upcoming mid-terms will be chaos and the Administration will win. 

The ballot box no longer matters. I suspect, a return to Jeffersonian democracy will require either civil war (a state or multiple states attempting to extricate themselves from the union) and/or a military coup. 


*Katharine Moody is a retired Massey University planning programme academic, having entered the teaching profession following her role as Radio Spectrum Manager under the Shipley and Clark governments. She was born and raised in the US and moved to New Zealand in 1978. She currently works as an advocacy planner on a pro-bono basis. She comments on interest.co.nz as "Kate".

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

12 Comments

Wow Kate.

I always thought "Gerrymander" was a word down amongst the ugly swearwords.

Now in Alabama I see it's just describes a method.

Astonishing.

 

Up
2

It is astonishing indeed.

And I suspect many of the GOP controlled states may follow suit - now that the SC has given the green light for them to ignore decades of precedent on the principle of no alterations close to elections.

Up
1

OTOH

"...For decades, Thomas has taken one of the most skeptical views on the court toward the use of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in redistricting cases, repeatedly arguing that federal law should play little to no role in how states draw congressional maps. His position is rooted in a broader constitutional philosophy that emphasizes a “colorblind” understanding of the Equal Protection Clause and rejects the idea that courts should require or encourage race-based districting.

...In 2023, Thomas criticized the majority for, in his view, forcing states to engage in race-conscious line drawing. He rejected the idea that the VRA requires states to create majority-minority districts to reflect population shares, writing that Section 2 does not demand proportional representation and would be unconstitutional if interpreted to do so.

More broadly, he described the Court’s redistricting jurisprudence as a “disastrous misadventure” that conflicts with the Constitution’s commitment to race neutrality.

Across these opinions, a consistent theme emerges: Thomas sees the VRA’s use in redistricting as encouraging the very racial sorting the Constitution forbids."

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-deals-republicans-temporary-bl…

 

Up
0

Yes,  But of course the VRA is the law. If the legislature wanted to change it, there is this thing called an "amendment".  Just as the NZ legislature could amend the Māori seats out of existence too.  But instead - this SC decided no such thing as Congress was needed and they merely over-ruled that law via an unsigned order of the court.  Yes, the Supreme Court, by a majority decision chose to ignore established law and precedent in two different ways as the article points out.  Dictatorship in the making when the tripartite system falls apart.

Up
1

There is also this thing called the "Constitution" to which he refers - "Thomas sees the VRA’s use in redistricting as encouraging the very racial sorting the Constitution forbids." 

Up
1

Yeah. Nah.

That's been Thomas' argument forever, in fulfilling his debt to Harlan Crow his benefactor. So, why didn't HE sign the order?  Simple. Because his argument is a crock - always has been - and he just didn't want to go down in history as the one who failed both the law and the Constitution in terms of interpretation. 

But this is worse than just a Gerrymandering issue. It opens the door to a return to apartheid. And that's exactly why neither the coward, Thomas, nor any of the other SC Justices would put their name to it. All cowards. All bought off traitors. Their day will come, but whether Thomas will last that long is doubtable.

 

 

Up
1

Yes, the way the left condescending regard the black votes as theirs is worse than a gerrymandering issue. Laid out bare by Biden - ‘If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black’.

Talk of civil war, traitors, coups etc just enflames nutjobs like ANTIFA, Hodgkinson, Routh etc. etc. Take a cup of tea and a lie down.  

Up
0

Donald Trump talks of traitors, war, coups all the time. e.g., MTG is a traitor; Thomas Massey is a traitor; he's going to obliterate the entire Iranian civilization; Obama was a traitor; the folks gathered on January 6th needed to fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country (and on ad finitum)..  but when someone you perceive as "the left" talks in a forthright manner (and in particular when they back up the argument with facts) we need to "take a cup of tea and a lie down"?

Sorry, profile - the warning signs are too great for those who stand against apartheid not to speak up and speak up frankly.

 

Up
2

What did anyone expect on the way down, resource=per-head-wise? 

Blame has to be placed somewhere - or at least on someone. Else. Preferably easily identifiable (otherwise uniforms, flags and roundels). Pigment is far easier. 

 

Up
1

Pigment is far easier.

Quote of the day, as always, you hit the nail on the head with so few words - but spot on..

 

Up
1

:)

Up
0

In NZ Te Tiriti principles are adopted by our judiciary interpreting its standing and without any parliamentary law-making.  In the USA constitutional principles are interpreted by their judiciary and implemented likewise. These are governing documents to which legislators must write laws that conform and are explicit in their intent.  Or they risk this happening. 

The constitution gives states the rights to gerrymander electorates along political lines. Previously the DEMs had this unique judicial interpretation carve out that meant all southern states needed to have some DEM controlled seats.  The GOP brought a case forward to overturn this and the judiciary made a judgement. 

It's hardly road to dictatorship.

 

Up
0