Supreme Court Puts 'Dagger in the Heart' of Voting Rights Act
In 'major step backwards,' high court guts important provision protecting against discriminatory voter suppression schemes
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court Tuesday has "sounded the death knell" for a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laying a blow to the millions of Americans who are dependent on Congressional oversight for fair elections.
"What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act," said Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis, following the news of the vote, which gutted the Act from protective provisions that had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
This ruling "threatens to make second-class citizens out of millions of Americans," added watchdog group, Common Cause.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
"Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the Voting Rights Act," wrote Ginsburg, adding, "When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress' power to act is at its height."
The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.
Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, "is without significance," writes the New York Times.
By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data--according to the ruling--for determining which states should be covered. However, according to SCOTUSblog, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this "will be exceptionally difficult politically."
And according to analysts, "the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small," the New York Times reports.
"In practice, in reality, it's probably the death knell of this provision," noted SCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein.
The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit on the basis that Section 5 had "outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states," after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.
"The sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective," lamented the dissenting justices.
"Discrimination at the ballot box is a real problem and causes real harm to our democracy," added Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement blasting the ruling. "This ruling is a major step backwards in the ongoing fight for a truly free and fair democracy and democratic system."
_____________________
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court Tuesday has "sounded the death knell" for a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laying a blow to the millions of Americans who are dependent on Congressional oversight for fair elections.
"What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act," said Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis, following the news of the vote, which gutted the Act from protective provisions that had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
This ruling "threatens to make second-class citizens out of millions of Americans," added watchdog group, Common Cause.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
"Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the Voting Rights Act," wrote Ginsburg, adding, "When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress' power to act is at its height."
The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.
Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, "is without significance," writes the New York Times.
By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data--according to the ruling--for determining which states should be covered. However, according to SCOTUSblog, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this "will be exceptionally difficult politically."
And according to analysts, "the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small," the New York Times reports.
"In practice, in reality, it's probably the death knell of this provision," noted SCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein.
The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit on the basis that Section 5 had "outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states," after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.
"The sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective," lamented the dissenting justices.
"Discrimination at the ballot box is a real problem and causes real harm to our democracy," added Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement blasting the ruling. "This ruling is a major step backwards in the ongoing fight for a truly free and fair democracy and democratic system."
_____________________
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court Tuesday has "sounded the death knell" for a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laying a blow to the millions of Americans who are dependent on Congressional oversight for fair elections.
"What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act," said Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis, following the news of the vote, which gutted the Act from protective provisions that had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
This ruling "threatens to make second-class citizens out of millions of Americans," added watchdog group, Common Cause.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
"Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the Voting Rights Act," wrote Ginsburg, adding, "When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress' power to act is at its height."
The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.
Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, "is without significance," writes the New York Times.
By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data--according to the ruling--for determining which states should be covered. However, according to SCOTUSblog, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this "will be exceptionally difficult politically."
And according to analysts, "the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small," the New York Times reports.
"In practice, in reality, it's probably the death knell of this provision," noted SCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein.
The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit on the basis that Section 5 had "outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states," after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.
"The sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective," lamented the dissenting justices.
"Discrimination at the ballot box is a real problem and causes real harm to our democracy," added Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement blasting the ruling. "This ruling is a major step backwards in the ongoing fight for a truly free and fair democracy and democratic system."
_____________________