Voting Rights Act now Congress’ challenge

McClatchy Washington BureauJune 26, 2013 

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a centerpiece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in a marked victory for Southern states and conservatives that also poses a steep challenge for Congress.

In one of the term’s most highly anticipated rulings, the court ruled 5-4 that part of the 1965 law must be updated to account for how times have changed since Congress first wrote the groundbreaking voting rights legislation.

The ruling could free nine states, as well as certain political jurisdictions in other states, from the necessity of getting prior Justice Department approval for changes that might have an impact on local elections.

“There is no denying that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the conservative majority.

The decision in the case brought by Shelby County, Ala., technically leaves in place the so-called preclearance requirements under the law. They require prior Justice Department approval, under Section 5, of everything from buying new voting machines and closing polling places to requiring photo identification and shifting district boundaries.

Practically speaking, though, the decision also effectively pulls the plug on preclearance for the time being, by striking down a related section that sets the formula for determining which political jurisdictions must meet the preclearance requirements. The justices said this part of the law, known as Section 4, was unconstitutional.

“Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices,” Roberts wrote, noting that “voter registration and turnout data in the covered states have risen dramatically in the years since.”

In 1965, for instance, only 27 percent of African-American adults in Georgia were registered to vote, compared with 62 percent of white adults. By 2004, African-American voter registration in Georgia had jumped to 64 percent, exceeding white registration. Other Southern states have shown similar trends.

The court’s decision leaves up to Congress the job of updating the preclearance formula, a tough political task that some lawmakers concede may be impossible. Until the formula is updated, however, preclearance itself is up in the air.

Almost immediately after the decision, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott declared that his state would put into place a controversial voter-identification law without Justice Department approval.

“Well, good luck,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said of the prospects of Congress passing a new formula. “I don’t think the current Congress has much of a chance to decide it one way or the other because of conflicts in the Congress. That’s a very touchy, very difficult, very sensitive area that’s very difficult to handle.”

Democratic Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C., the capital’s nonvoting representative in the House of Representatives, said Tuesday that she didn’t expect Congress to make any changes this year. At the same time, Norton noted that the last rewrite of the Voting Rights Act, which passed with overwhelming support, had backing from Republican leaders.

“Can they say, ‘Although we stood here in 2006, we’re not going to try to update the formula’?” Norton asked rhetorically. “I don’t think they can say that with any credibility.”

In the meantime, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Justice Department “will continue to carefully monitor” political jurisdictions for voting rights impediments and “will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action” when necessary.

Voting Rights Act advocates say that requiring prior Justice Department approval for electoral changes is more effective than chasing after individual violations after the fact.

Nine states currently are covered in their entirety by the preclearance requirements: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Selected jurisdictions in an additional six states — California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota — also are covered.

The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service