Supreme Court Pulls Teeth From the Voting Rights Act
Once an election is done, it is hard to undo.
That's true in Iran, and it's also true in the United States.
This is why it is important to get the rules by which elections are held right before elections are held.
For this reason, one of the essential components of the Voting Rights
Act -- arguably its most powerful tool for combating discrimination and
disenfranchisement -- has long been a requirement that officials get
approval from the Department of Justice before they change the way in
which elections are conducted.
Allow states, counties, municipalities or school districts in the 16
states that are wholly or partially with historic patterns of
discrimination to opt out of the review, and they will be able to
organize and hold elections that renew those patterns. That's why the
requirement has been referred to by law professors as "one of the crown jewels of the civil rights movement."
Foes of the Voting Rights Act have long focused on weakening Section 5
of the act, the provision that requires election officials in the
states covered by the act to obtain federal permission before making
changes to voting procedures, moving polling-place locations, requiring
so-called "citizenship checks" and redrawing voting district lines.
They rightly argued that to do so would remove the teeth from the
measure that has long been disdained by southerners pining for the days
before what former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott referred to as "all the laws of Washington" changed the way things were done in Dixie.
On Monday, the Supreme Court tarnished the crown jewel, giving state
and local officials new flexibility to "opt out" of the requirement
that they obtain permission when changing election rules. The court
ruling does not invalidate the Voting Rights Act -- as some had feared
-- but it does undermine it.
The court, with only one justice (Clarence Thomas) in partial
dissent, said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No.
1 in Austin, Texas, can avoid the advance approval requirement.
The ruling is being interpreted as a signal all local jurisdictions
in a Voting Rights Act state can at least apply for what is referred to
as "a statutory bailout."
That was a reversal of a lower federal court that had preserved the Voting Rights Act as it was intended to operate.
That's a dangerous move, say civil rights supporters.
As Georgia Congressman John Lewis,
who has watched the court's deliberations closely, says, "No one can
deny the fact we've made progress. But that's not the question. That's
not the issue. The issue is we need this tool to guard against the
possibility of reverting back to our dark past."
Lewis is right. Invalidating the Voting Rights Act would be a shock
to the body politic. But dismantling the measure tooth by tooth should
still be recognized for what it is: a judicial assault on history, and
on the future.
The Voting Rights Act is still on the books -- despite evidence from recent hearings that Chief Justice John Roberts and some of his conservative activist colleagues would like to do away with it.
Voters can still sue under its provisions when they believe they are
victims of discrimination. Unfortunately, notes Laughlin McDonald, who
directs the ACLU's voting rights project, few plaintiffs will have the
financial resources to pursue these complex cases.
So the high court has taken a big whack at the Voting Rights Act.
Now it falls to the Obama administration's Department of Justice --
which has sent good signals regarding its commitment to enforcing
voting rights protections -- and the Congress to put the teeth back in
the act.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy,
D-Vermont, has warned that any attempt by the court to strike down the
Voting Rights Act "would be conservative activism pure and simple."
The same goes for pulling the act apart tooth by tooth.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 has always been 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, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Once an election is done, it is hard to undo.
That's true in Iran, and it's also true in the United States.
This is why it is important to get the rules by which elections are held right before elections are held.
For this reason, one of the essential components of the Voting Rights
Act -- arguably its most powerful tool for combating discrimination and
disenfranchisement -- has long been a requirement that officials get
approval from the Department of Justice before they change the way in
which elections are conducted.
Allow states, counties, municipalities or school districts in the 16
states that are wholly or partially with historic patterns of
discrimination to opt out of the review, and they will be able to
organize and hold elections that renew those patterns. That's why the
requirement has been referred to by law professors as "one of the crown jewels of the civil rights movement."
Foes of the Voting Rights Act have long focused on weakening Section 5
of the act, the provision that requires election officials in the
states covered by the act to obtain federal permission before making
changes to voting procedures, moving polling-place locations, requiring
so-called "citizenship checks" and redrawing voting district lines.
They rightly argued that to do so would remove the teeth from the
measure that has long been disdained by southerners pining for the days
before what former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott referred to as "all the laws of Washington" changed the way things were done in Dixie.
On Monday, the Supreme Court tarnished the crown jewel, giving state
and local officials new flexibility to "opt out" of the requirement
that they obtain permission when changing election rules. The court
ruling does not invalidate the Voting Rights Act -- as some had feared
-- but it does undermine it.
The court, with only one justice (Clarence Thomas) in partial
dissent, said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No.
1 in Austin, Texas, can avoid the advance approval requirement.
The ruling is being interpreted as a signal all local jurisdictions
in a Voting Rights Act state can at least apply for what is referred to
as "a statutory bailout."
That was a reversal of a lower federal court that had preserved the Voting Rights Act as it was intended to operate.
That's a dangerous move, say civil rights supporters.
As Georgia Congressman John Lewis,
who has watched the court's deliberations closely, says, "No one can
deny the fact we've made progress. But that's not the question. That's
not the issue. The issue is we need this tool to guard against the
possibility of reverting back to our dark past."
Lewis is right. Invalidating the Voting Rights Act would be a shock
to the body politic. But dismantling the measure tooth by tooth should
still be recognized for what it is: a judicial assault on history, and
on the future.
The Voting Rights Act is still on the books -- despite evidence from recent hearings that Chief Justice John Roberts and some of his conservative activist colleagues would like to do away with it.
Voters can still sue under its provisions when they believe they are
victims of discrimination. Unfortunately, notes Laughlin McDonald, who
directs the ACLU's voting rights project, few plaintiffs will have the
financial resources to pursue these complex cases.
So the high court has taken a big whack at the Voting Rights Act.
Now it falls to the Obama administration's Department of Justice --
which has sent good signals regarding its commitment to enforcing
voting rights protections -- and the Congress to put the teeth back in
the act.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy,
D-Vermont, has warned that any attempt by the court to strike down the
Voting Rights Act "would be conservative activism pure and simple."
The same goes for pulling the act apart tooth by tooth.
Once an election is done, it is hard to undo.
That's true in Iran, and it's also true in the United States.
This is why it is important to get the rules by which elections are held right before elections are held.
For this reason, one of the essential components of the Voting Rights
Act -- arguably its most powerful tool for combating discrimination and
disenfranchisement -- has long been a requirement that officials get
approval from the Department of Justice before they change the way in
which elections are conducted.
Allow states, counties, municipalities or school districts in the 16
states that are wholly or partially with historic patterns of
discrimination to opt out of the review, and they will be able to
organize and hold elections that renew those patterns. That's why the
requirement has been referred to by law professors as "one of the crown jewels of the civil rights movement."
Foes of the Voting Rights Act have long focused on weakening Section 5
of the act, the provision that requires election officials in the
states covered by the act to obtain federal permission before making
changes to voting procedures, moving polling-place locations, requiring
so-called "citizenship checks" and redrawing voting district lines.
They rightly argued that to do so would remove the teeth from the
measure that has long been disdained by southerners pining for the days
before what former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott referred to as "all the laws of Washington" changed the way things were done in Dixie.
On Monday, the Supreme Court tarnished the crown jewel, giving state
and local officials new flexibility to "opt out" of the requirement
that they obtain permission when changing election rules. The court
ruling does not invalidate the Voting Rights Act -- as some had feared
-- but it does undermine it.
The court, with only one justice (Clarence Thomas) in partial
dissent, said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No.
1 in Austin, Texas, can avoid the advance approval requirement.
The ruling is being interpreted as a signal all local jurisdictions
in a Voting Rights Act state can at least apply for what is referred to
as "a statutory bailout."
That was a reversal of a lower federal court that had preserved the Voting Rights Act as it was intended to operate.
That's a dangerous move, say civil rights supporters.
As Georgia Congressman John Lewis,
who has watched the court's deliberations closely, says, "No one can
deny the fact we've made progress. But that's not the question. That's
not the issue. The issue is we need this tool to guard against the
possibility of reverting back to our dark past."
Lewis is right. Invalidating the Voting Rights Act would be a shock
to the body politic. But dismantling the measure tooth by tooth should
still be recognized for what it is: a judicial assault on history, and
on the future.
The Voting Rights Act is still on the books -- despite evidence from recent hearings that Chief Justice John Roberts and some of his conservative activist colleagues would like to do away with it.
Voters can still sue under its provisions when they believe they are
victims of discrimination. Unfortunately, notes Laughlin McDonald, who
directs the ACLU's voting rights project, few plaintiffs will have the
financial resources to pursue these complex cases.
So the high court has taken a big whack at the Voting Rights Act.
Now it falls to the Obama administration's Department of Justice --
which has sent good signals regarding its commitment to enforcing
voting rights protections -- and the Congress to put the teeth back in
the act.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy,
D-Vermont, has warned that any attempt by the court to strike down the
Voting Rights Act "would be conservative activism pure and simple."
The same goes for pulling the act apart tooth by tooth.