Supreme Court reverses hard-won progress under the Voting Rights Act | Opinion

Less accountable government

“How Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Ruling could affect the midterms and beyond,” (fresnobee.com, April 29)

The Supreme Court decision just reversed hard-won progress under the Voting Rights Act.

It means less representation for millions of Black Americans and other voters of color, as lawmakers gain the ability to manipulate their districts.

There will be more extreme partisan gerrymandering, lopsided elections, less accountable government and policies that hurt rather than help with everyday life.

It does not have to be this way. We can mobilize around reform, new laws and, where necessary, constitutional amendments for fairer government. Only then can we feel the benefits of a balanced court, a truly representative Congress and an election system free from the distorting power of extreme corporate and partisan manipulation.

Paul Bacon

Hallandale Beach, Fla.

Who is paying your candidate?

“Campaign finance reform can save our republic,” (fresnobee.com, April 5, 2017)

Every election cycle, candidates flood our screens, telling us who they are, what they value and how they will “fight” for us. But there is a more important question voters should ask: Who works for whom?

Here in Fresno and across California, the honest answer is rarely “the people.” More often, it is the donors. Modern political campaigns are fueled by money, and viability is measured less by ideas than by fundraising totals. Candidates must prove to donors and political action committees that they can generate financial momentum.

And, like any investment, money in politics expects a return. This is not necessarily about corruption or bad intent; it is about incentives. When large contributions shape a campaign, they inevitably shape priorities.

The result is a system where voters compete with well-funded interests for influence, and, too often, lose.

William Brown

Visalia

California must build

“California committee kills bill aiming to end tax break for corporate landlords,” (fresnobee.com, April 27)

The California Department of Housing and Community Development has been clear: over the last decade, the state produced fewer than 80,000 new homes per year — less than half of the roughly 180,000 required annually. That supply gap is the real crisis.

Instead of asking how to increase supply, we’re fed a rotating list of scapegoats: boomers, NIMBYs, regulations and now “corporate landlords.”

Here’s the question lawmakers should answer every time they propose a new restriction: Will this policy build a single new home? If the answer is no, it’s political theater. Pushing investors out doesn’t create ownership opportunities; it drives capital away from housing.

Eric Eisenhammer

Roseville

Don’t feed the wildlife

“CA officials warn of increased bear encounters, especially in Tahoe, as temps rise,” (fresnobee.com, April 28)

When bears gain access to human food, conflict inevitably follows. Black bears are highly intelligent, but they are motivated by food. Once rewarded with unsecured garbage, bird or pet foods or backyard attractants, they quickly lose their natural wariness of people.

Communities across California already know what works: bear‑resistant trash containers, locking doors and windows, removing bird feeders during the time when bears are out of their dens and never feeding wildlife — intentionally or not. These tools are effective because they keep bears wild and people safe.

When we fail to prevent attractants, the outcome is often fatal for the bear — not the human. If we want fewer break‑ins, fewer emergency responses and fewer bears euthanized, the solution starts with us.

Dawn Ward

Placerville