The Supreme Court on Tuesday gutted a key part of the landmark Voting Rights
Act, passed in 1965 to end a century of attempts by former slaveholding
states to block blacks from voting.
In a 5-4 ruling with the court’s conservatives in the majority, the
justices ruled thatCongress had used obsolete reasoning in continuing
to force nine states, mainly in the South, to get federal approval for
voting rule changes affecting blacks and other minorities.
The court ruled in favor of officials from Shelby County, Alabama, by declaring
invalid a section of the law that set a formula that determines which
states need federal approval to change voting laws.
President Barack Obama quickly called on Congress to pass a new law to
ensure equal access to voting polls for all.
"I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision
today," Obama, the first black U.S. president, said in a statement,
adding that the court’s action "upsets decades of well-established
practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where
voting discrimination has been historically prevalent."
The ruling upended important legal protections for minority voters that
were a key achievement of the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s
led by Martin Luther King Jr. The decision also placed the burden on Congress
– sharply divided along party lines to the point of virtual gridlock
– to pass any new voting rights law like the one sought by Obama.
Writing for the majority, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said
the coverage formula that Congress used when it most recently re-authorized
the law in 2006 should have been updated.
"Congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula
grounded in current conditions," he wrote. "It instead re-enacted
a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to
the present day."
The coverage formula therefore violates the sovereignty of the affected
states under the U.S. Constitution, Roberts said.
One of the most closely watched disputes of the court’s current term,
the case centers on the civil rights-era law that broadly prohibited poll
taxes, literacy tests and other measures that prevented blacks from voting.
In the 1960s, such laws existed throughout the country but were more prevalent
in the South with its legacy of slavery.
The Shelby County challengers said the kind of systematic obstruction that
once warranted treating the South differently is over and the screening
provision should be struck down.
The Obama administration, backed by civil rights advocates, had argued
that the provision was still needed to deter voter discrimination.
The ruling is a heavy blow for civil rights advocates, who believe the
loss of that section of the law could lead to an increase in attempts
to deter minorities from voting. They said 31 proposals made by covered
jurisdictions to modify election laws had been blocked by the Justice
Department under Section 5 of the law since the measure was re-enacted in 2006.
Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
accused the Supreme Court of leaving "millions of minority voters
without the mechanism that has allowed them to stop voting discrimination
before it occurs."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat,
on Tuesday pledged to move quickly to try to restore voting rights protections
after the ruling.
"I intend to take immediate action to ensure that we will have a strong
and reconstituted Voting Rights Act that protects against racial discrimination
in voting," Leahy said.
The court, split on ideological lines, did not go so far as to strike down
the core Section 5 of the law, known as the preclearance provision, which
requires certain states to get approval from the Justice Department or
a federal court before making election-law changes.
But the majority did invalidate Section 4b of the act, which set the formula
for states covered by Section 5 and was based on historic patterns of
discrimination against minority voters.
Although Section 5 is technically left intact, it is effectively nullified,
at least for the near future, as Congress would now need to pass new legislation
setting a new formula before it can be applied again.
In her dissenting opinion on behalf of the liberal wing of the court, Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Section 5 is now "immobilized."
Ginsburg read a summary of her dissent from the bench, quoting the late
civil rights leader King. In her written opinion, she accused Roberts
of downplaying the authority Congress has under amendments to the Constitution
that were enacted after the U.S. Civil War when slavery was first prohibited
but concerns remained about how former Confederate states would treat
Congress approached the 2006 re-authorization "with great care and
seriousness," she added. "The same cannot be said of the court’s
Section 5 of the law required certain states, mainly in the South, to show
that any proposed election-law change does not discriminate against black,
Latino or other minority voters.
The nine fully covered states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York said of the ruling: "Make
no mistake about it, this is a back door way to gut the Voting Rights
Act. As long as Republicans have a majority in the House and Democrats
don’t have 60 votes in the Senate, there will be no preclearance."
"It is confounding that after decades of progress on voting rights,
which have become part of the American fabric, the Supreme Court would
tear it asunder," Schumer added.
Tuesday’s ruling leaves intact Section 2 of the act, which broadly
prohibits intentional discrimination in the voting arena. The Justice
Department will still be able to intervene to enforce the law in that respect.
ISSUE STILL PROMINENT
The issue of voting rights remains prominent in the United States. During
the 2012 presidential election campaign, judges nationwide heard challenges
to new voter identification laws and redrawn voting districts. The most
restrictive moves ended up being blocked before the November elections.
Just last week, the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona state law that
required people registering to vote in federal elections to show proof
of citizenship, a victory for activists who said it discouraged Native
Americans and Latinos from voting.
Democrats say that and similar measures, championed by Republicans at the
state level, were intended to make it more difficult for certain voters
who tend to vote Democratic to cast ballots.
In February, Obama, a Democrat, decried barriers to voting in America and
announced a commission to address voting issues.
If you are seeking aggressive criminal representation by an experienced
criminal defense attorney for your Denton County criminal case or arrest
in Denton County, contact the offices of Tim Powers today. There is no
charge or obligation for the initial consultation. 940.580.2899
*Tim Powers is an attorney licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court
of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice. For
legal advice about any specific legal question you should directly consult
Criminal Defense Lawyers with Unparalleled Passion for Success Providing
Quality Representation for your Denton, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Carrollton,
Corinth, Highland Village Dallas, Plano, McKinney, Denton County, Tarrant
County, Collin County, or Dallas County criminal case