Search form

Voting Rights Act, Section 4, Struck Down By Supreme Court

Voting Rights Act, Section 4, Struck Down By Supreme Court
This article originally appeared on Huffington Post

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or in federal court.

The 5-4 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that “things have changed dramatically” in the South in the nearly 50 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed in 1965.

The court’s opinion said it did not strike down the act of Congress “lightly,” and said it “took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act” in a separate case back in 2009. “Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [Section 4] unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”

The Voting Rights Act has recently been used to block a voter ID law in Texas and delay the implementation of another in South Carolina. Both states are no longer subject to the preclearance requirement because of the court’s ruling on Tuesday.

“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote.

“There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act," he wrote. "The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process."

In his bench statement, Roberts said that Congress had extended a 40-year-old coverage formula based on "obsolete statistics and that the coverage formula "violates the constitution."

Congress, the court ruled, “may draft another formula based on current conditions.” But given the fact that Republicans currently control the House of Representatives, many voting rights advocates consider it unlikely that Congress will act to create a new formula.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a wide-ranging dissent on behalf of herself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, justifying the continued vitality of the Voting Rights Act's preclearance provision.

"The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective," Ginsburg wrote. "The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclear­ance is no longer needed."

The court did not rule on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the preclearance requirement itself, which requires those affected states to have changes to their voting laws cleared by the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington, D.C., before they go into effect. Rather, the court ruled that the current formula that determines which states are covered by Section 5 is unconstitutional, effectively eliminating Section 5 enforcement, at least for the time being.

"In the Court’s view, the very success of §5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy," Ginsburg wrote.

She said in her bench statement that in renewing Section 5 in 2006, Congress "found that 40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the 15th Amendment."

The provision has proven "enormously successful" in increasing minority registration and access to the ballot and preventing a "return to old ways," Ginsburg said. Even in jurisdictions where discrimination may not be overt, "subtle methods" have emerged to diminish minority turnout, such as racial gerrymandering.

As for Section 4, Ginsburg wrote that "the record for the 2006 reauthorization makes abundantly clear [that] second-generation barriers to minority voting rights have emerged in the covered jurisdictions as at­tempted substitutes for the first-generation barriers that originally triggered preclearance in those jurisdictions."

"Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and I are of the view that Congress' decision to extend the act and keep the formula was a rational one," Ginsburg said.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas reiterated his belief that Section 5 is also unconstitutional, a position he took in his dissent from the Court's previous encounter with the Voting Rights Act in 2009.

"However one aggregates the data compiled by Congress, it cannot justify the considerable burdens created by §5," Thomas wrote on Tuesday.

The Obama Justice Department, believing the court might strike down Section 5 in the 2009 case, devised a plan to react to the ruling. A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Voting rights advocates condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court has effectively gutted one of the nation's most important and effective civil rights laws,” Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement. “Minority voters in places with a record of discrimination are now at greater risk of being disenfranchised than they have been in decades. Today's decision is a blow to democracy. Jurisdictions will be able to enact policies which prevent minorities from voting, and the only recourse these citizens will have will be expensive and time-consuming litigation.”

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision erases fundamental protections against racial discrimination in voting that have been effective for more than 40 years,” Elisabeth MacNamara, president of the League of Women Voters of the United States, said in a statement. “Congress must act quickly to restore the Voting Rights Act.”

“Today will be remembered as a step backwards in the march towards equal rights,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “We must ensure that this day is just a page in our nation’s history, rather than the return to a dark chapter."

“The Roberts Court proved again that it will not be deterred by Supreme Court precedent, the realities on the ground in our nation; nor will it defer to Congress even when the legislative branch is granted clear authority by the Constitution to remedy our nation's long history of discrimination against racial and language minorities,” said J. Gerald Hebert of the Campaign Legal Center. “The Court today declared racism dead in this country despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.”


Add new comment

Sign Up

Article Tabs

Polish abortion law, Polish Black Protests, anti-abortion legislation, abortion rights, abortion rights activists, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Law and Justice Party

The proposed legislation promised to outright ban abortion in the country, even in cases of pregnancy resulting from sexual abuse, threatening women and doctors performing the operation with up to five years' imprisonment.

Standing Rock Sioux tribe, Standing Rock protests, Dakota Access Pipeline, North Dakota arrests, Indigenous Environmental Network, water protectors

They’ve already tried intimidation and humiliation, and the number of arrests are increasing. The latest tactic is to toss around the word “riot” as if saying it often enough will change its definition.

dining hall worker strikes, Harvard employee strikes, rising health care costs, hungry employees

Why is Harvard's administration asking dining hall workers to pay even more for our health care even though some of us pay as much as $4,000 a year in premiums alone?

climate change, Dakota Access Pipeline, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Wikileaks, Bernie Sanders

Clinton’s no friend of the earth, but she can be pressured.

revolving door, Donald Trump, money in politics, 1%, misogyny, racism

The international banking industry is racist and sexist – so why should we be surprised if that's also the kind of billionaire who seeks the U.S. presidency.

Nuit Debout, horizontal democracy, horizontalism, direct democracy, Nuit-Deboutistes, Occupy Wall Street, 15-M, global social movements, economic justice movements, movement of the squares

Nuit Debout is apartisan, but not apolitical.

Posted 5 days 20 hours ago
Geofeedia, mapping protesters, surveillance programs, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, social media spying, Baltimore protests, Freddie Gray,

For years, the social media giants have provided data to Geofeedia, a company marketing surveillance tools to police, creating real-time maps of activity in protest areas that were later used to identify and arrest protestors.

Posted 5 days 20 hours ago
climate change, Election 2016, creative activism, presidential debates, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, mainstream media, corporate media, climate justice, climate destruction, fracking, oil pipelines, climate direct action, activism, civil disobedience

This week, climate change might not be a thing on the presidential stage, but it's definitely a thing outside our sick mirage democracy.

Posted 6 days 21 hours ago
revolving door, Donald Trump, money in politics, 1%, misogyny, racism

The international banking industry is racist and sexist – so why should we be surprised if that's also the kind of billionaire who seeks the U.S. presidency.

Posted 4 days 3 hours ago
fracking, fracking health risks

In the nine states examined in a new report, 1,947 child care facilities, 1,376 schools, 236 nursing care providers and 103 hospitals are located within a one-mile radius of fracked wells across the U.S.

Posted 6 days 22 hours ago
urban co-ops, Cleveland Foundation, Evergreen Cooperatives, Democracy at Work Institute, Worker Cooperative Business Development Initiative, Center for Cooperatives, Shared Capital Cooperative, Democracy Collaborative

Since the Evergreen Cooperatives loan in 2009, nine more city governments have promoted worker co-ops through municipal projects, initiatives or policies aimed at reaching communities left out of mainstream economic development.

Jimmy Fallon and President Obama slow jam the news, discussing Obama's legacy, accomplishments and thoughts on the 2016 election.

surveillance programs, bulk collection of data, Edward Snowden, European Court of Human Rights, Privacy International, Telecommunications Act, Investigatory Powers Tribunal

Decision is called "long overdue indictment" of government's bulk collection of citizens' private information.

revolving door, Donald Trump, money in politics, 1%, misogyny, racism

The international banking industry is racist and sexist – so why should we be surprised if that's also the kind of billionaire who seeks the U.S. presidency.