Breaking News Bar
posted: 3/11/2013 4:00 AM

Right to vote is not a 'racial entitlement'

hello
Success - Article sent! close
 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Shelby County v. Holder -- a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically Section 5, which requires states and localities with a history of voting discrimination against racial and language minorities to get "preapproved" by the federal government before changing how elections are conducted or voters are registered.

Most commentators think that this core provision of the Voting Rights Act is in trouble. Judging by remarks from three of the five conservative judges, they may be right.

Order Reprint Print Article
 
Interested in reusing this article?
Custom reprints are a powerful and strategic way to share your article with customers, employees and prospects.
The YGS Group provides digital and printed reprint services for Daily Herald. Complete the form to the right and a reprint consultant will contact you to discuss how you can reuse this article.
Need more information about reprints? Visit our Reprints Section for more details.

Contact information ( * required )

Success - request sent close

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli if the Obama administration thinks Southerners "are more racist than citizens in the North." Verilli said no.

Of course, Roberts didn't explain what the degree or quantity of individuals' racism had to do with systemic and systematic governmental efforts to deny some eligible citizens the right to vote.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the Voting Rights Act "a perpetuation of racial entitlement." I hope even conservatives are appalled and disgusted by such an offensive falsehood.

On the other side are the facts:

In 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. Congress did so only after extensive hearings, compiling over 15,000 pages of records showing Section 5 was still needed. And the vote to renew was nearly unanimous: 390-33 in the House; 98-0 in the Senate.

U.S. District Court Judge John Bates -- a George W. Bush appointee, by the way -- in upholding the law, recognized not only Congress's right to renew it, but the continued legal need for it, as he explained in his detailed, 131-page opinion.

Some more facts, from this past year:

A panel of federal judges refused to approve Florida's attempt to cut early voting hours in the state's five counties covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. After that decision, the state agreed to allow the five counties to return to offering 96 hours of early voting, ensuring that those counties enjoyed the same amount of early voting hours that were available in 2008.

In a Texas case, a panel of federal judges held that the state's new photo ID law violated the Voting Rights Act, in part because the law would impose "strict, unforgiving burdens" on poor and minority voters. As the court stated, "a law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote." This restriction -- under which voters could have cast ballots with a gun license, but not student or veteran IDs -- did not go in effect on Election Day.

In South Carolina, the state's photo ID law was blocked by a federal court that ruled not enough time remained before Election Day to implement it in a way that would satisfy Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

There's a bitter irony in the timing. While a majority of the Supreme Court was determined to ignore facts, history and legal precedent, President Obama -- and leaders of both parties -- were dedicating a statue to Rosa Parks in Congress' Statuary Hall.

When Congress debated renewal in 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy explained why it was still necessary: "We need to ensure that jurisdictions know that the act will be in force for a sufficiently long period that they cannot simply wait for its expiration, but must eliminate discrimination root and branch."

And today, in response to Scalia's vile comment, former President Bill Clinton told ThinkProgress. com: "Since the Act's enactment in 1965, disciplined, systematic efforts to undermine its safeguards by disenfranchising younger, poorer, minority, and disabled voters -- some even more determined today than they were 48 years ago -- are reminding us of the fragility of this very precious right."

The expected 5-4 decision to strike down Section 5, along with a long-standing disdain for Congress and de facto disenfranchisement of voters, would further damage the reputation of a Supreme Court still shamed by the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson in the 19th century, and Bush v. Gore and Citizens United in the 21st century.

2013, United Features Syndicate

Share this page
Comments ()
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the X in the upper right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.
    help here