We understandably spent a significant portion of this last semester studying the Civil Rights movement and the rise of the African American community in U.S. History. I thought it would be interesting to examine how legislation passed during this time period still has a significant impact on our society and courts today.
One of the most important pieces of legislation that we learned about was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which as a whole prohibits states and their political subdivisions from imposing voting qualifications or prerequisites which limit the right to vote of minority Americans. It was widely regarded by many as an act that paved the way for the birth of the modern United States.
However, nearly 50 years later in 2013 the Supreme Court declared that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of the Constitution was unconstitutional in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. This section “establishes a ‘coverage formula’ to determine which states and local governments... need to get approval before changing their voting laws.” The states that need to get approval are typically Southern states that have a poor track record when it comes to upholding civil rights legislation. States covered entirely included Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the coverage formula that determines which states need to get approval is woefully outdated. The outdatedness of the formula, coupled with the disparate treatment of the states, made up the basis of his decision.
Roberts in his majority opinion argues that, “The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores developments [made by these states and counties], keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.” He also felt the act violates the principle of equal sovereignty, as it applies to only nine states and a few additional counties.
It is also important to note that by declaring Section 4 of the VRA unconstitutional, Section 5 is immobilized. According to Justice Ginsburg, “without the formula, section 5 is immobilized.” [1] Section 5, though not actually ruled unconstitutional by the Court, is effectively struck down without the backing of Section Four. Section 5 is the section that requires States to get approval before changing their voting laws.
Opponents of the decision in Shelby County v. Holder have argued that Section 4 is necessary in order to continue to ensure that minority voting rights are protected, and that this decision will make it more difficult for historically underrepresented groups to be able to vote.
President Obama released a statement after the Supreme Court’s decision saying that, “Today’s decision invalidating one of [the Voting Rights Act] core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent. As the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists... [and] my Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.”
Whether or not Section 4 is unconstitutional continues to be a heated issue, debated by politicians and ordinary citizens alike.
Sources:
This just comes to show how far our nation has matured in the last 50 years. In the 1960s and even a bit into the late 20th century, racism was much more prevalent than it is today. It's nice to see that the government is advocating equality and justice for all. Good post! #sriramslays
ReplyDeleteThanks for setting the context Sitara. My favorite quote of this entire case was that of Justice Ruth Ginsburg. In her dissent, she stated that "Throwing out preclearance [section 4 of the VRA] when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has helped shrink the voting disparity between minorities and whites tremendously over the past 50 years. Personally, I agree with Justice Ginsburg that such a successful law should not have been nullified.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michael. This nation has made great strides in terms of human rights. However, the country is still plagued with instances of discrimination and hatred. Unfortunately, the government seems to be delaying any sort of action that would ensure the rights of the underrepresented. Thoughts?
ReplyDelete