Section 4 is the part that sets criteria for the required prior approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court for any changes in voting laws in a designated group of states. These states are ones with past records of discriminatory laws and practices concerning registering and voting. Section 4 covered criteria to be used in determining when a state might be released from this pre-clearance requirement.
What the court has now said is that the Voting Rights Act has been remarkably successful, that things have changed dramatically since it was adopted, and that these criteria are out of date. The decision further says that Congress could update those laws to take account of present-day conditions; but since it has not done that, SCOTUS has no choice but to hold Section 4 unconstitutional.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, notably did not strike down Section 5, which mandates the preclearance provision, only Section 4 concerning the way states are evaluated to come under Section 5.
Here's what I understand that this means. On the surface of the majority opinion, it seems rather reasonable: there has been improvement, and we should use up to date data rather than old data.
In practical terms, however, what this means is that with the present control of Congress largely in the hands of Republicans, nothing will be done any time soon. It's Republicans in state governments, after all, that are passing new laws every year that effectively restrict voting participation of minorities.
As Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent stated:
"The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective. . . 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."Just this past year, the VRA allowed the Department of Justice to invalidate changes in voting regulations in both Texas and South Carolina, because they were seen as affecting black Americans disproportionately. And Republican-controlled state governments now will only become bolder in their voter-suppression efforts.
On the other hand, I agree that the danger to voting rights in the 21st century is less about race per se than it is about disadvantaged groups in general that tend to vote Democratic. It's more about class than race. So we do need a new Voters' Rights Act to shift the emphasis from race to voting rights for all.
But is there any chance of such a law getting through Congress any time soon? Not likely. No, this is a bad day for democracy. One of the two major political parties has essentially conceded that the only way they can win elections is by lying, distorting the facts, and inhibiting access to the polls of their opponents' constituents.
And now the conservative court has removed a major obstacle, making it a easier for them to do this.
Ralph
I have already signed two petitions online today: one in support of new laws to guarantee voting rights, the other for a constitutional amendment for the same thing.
ReplyDeleteWe need strictly enforced voting rights laws throughout the country. That would be a good exchange for the Voting Rights Act that specifically protects racial minorities.
Rachel Maddow was scathing in her analysis of the meaning today. She reported that five or six states that have already enacted voter ID laws that have been on hold are now saying they will go into effect immediately. North Carolina, which was holding off on passing a law, will not only introduce a bill but will add others restrictions, like reducing early voting, making registration more difficult, and eliminating Sunday voting. All of these hit hardest at African-American voters.
ReplyDeleteSo John Roberts and the Konservative Krew think there's no problem? Congress can write a new law -- which the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee says he will start on right away. But the House is another matter. Fancy getting these Republican clowns like Georgia's Paul Braun to support it? He actually introduced an amendment last January to suspend enforcement of the VRA -- until John Lewis shamed him on the House floor in the middle of the night when he thought he could sneak through the bill.
So my more sanguine tone in my earlier post was naive. We've got a real problem with this. It's just one more indication of the conservative court and the destruction it can do (think Citizens United just for one).
Braun apologized and withdrew his amendment.