SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
(Photo: Getty Images.)
Voting Rights Act To Go Before Supreme Court
Act requires federal oversight in some states before voting laws changed
Nov 09, 2012
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it would decide whether an historic portion of the Voting Rights Act protecting against racial discrimination is constitutional.
Section 5 of the act, passed in 1965, requires states and localities with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing any voting laws.
Nine states and parts of seven others are required to obtain the approval.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports:
The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders.
The court will hear an appeal of a case from Shelby County, Alabama, the Associated Press reports, that argues that state and local governments subject to the law have made significant progress and no longer require oversight.
But in 2009, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "sidestepped" the question as "a difficult constitutional issue, according to the AP.
Last spring, Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that there was no reason to reassess the law.
The law has been challenged by Conservative and Republicans in some of the affected states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, according to the Washington Post.
During his campaign this year, the Obama administration turned to Section 5 to challenge restrictions on voting, and was largely successful.
Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project today urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law as an essential civil rights safeguard:
As we have seen in a number of states this year, efforts to enact voting laws that target people of color and other groups are unfortunately far too common. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act helps eliminate such discriminatory and harmful practices. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize the vital role this civil rights-era law plays in protecting the fundamental right to vote and ensuring equal access to voting.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it would decide whether an historic portion of the Voting Rights Act protecting against racial discrimination is constitutional.
Section 5 of the act, passed in 1965, requires states and localities with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing any voting laws.
Nine states and parts of seven others are required to obtain the approval.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports:
The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders.
The court will hear an appeal of a case from Shelby County, Alabama, the Associated Press reports, that argues that state and local governments subject to the law have made significant progress and no longer require oversight.
But in 2009, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "sidestepped" the question as "a difficult constitutional issue, according to the AP.
Last spring, Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that there was no reason to reassess the law.
The law has been challenged by Conservative and Republicans in some of the affected states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, according to the Washington Post.
During his campaign this year, the Obama administration turned to Section 5 to challenge restrictions on voting, and was largely successful.
Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project today urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law as an essential civil rights safeguard:
As we have seen in a number of states this year, efforts to enact voting laws that target people of color and other groups are unfortunately far too common. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act helps eliminate such discriminatory and harmful practices. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize the vital role this civil rights-era law plays in protecting the fundamental right to vote and ensuring equal access to voting.
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it would decide whether an historic portion of the Voting Rights Act protecting against racial discrimination is constitutional.
Section 5 of the act, passed in 1965, requires states and localities with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing any voting laws.
Nine states and parts of seven others are required to obtain the approval.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports:
The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders.
The court will hear an appeal of a case from Shelby County, Alabama, the Associated Press reports, that argues that state and local governments subject to the law have made significant progress and no longer require oversight.
But in 2009, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "sidestepped" the question as "a difficult constitutional issue, according to the AP.
Last spring, Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that there was no reason to reassess the law.
The law has been challenged by Conservative and Republicans in some of the affected states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, according to the Washington Post.
During his campaign this year, the Obama administration turned to Section 5 to challenge restrictions on voting, and was largely successful.
Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project today urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law as an essential civil rights safeguard:
As we have seen in a number of states this year, efforts to enact voting laws that target people of color and other groups are unfortunately far too common. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act helps eliminate such discriminatory and harmful practices. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize the vital role this civil rights-era law plays in protecting the fundamental right to vote and ensuring equal access to voting.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.