Here is a quick explanation of what the Supreme Court’s ruling means.
The Supreme Court ruled, with a 5-4 vote, that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. The case before the justice’s, Shelby County v. Holder actually questioned Section 5 of the VRA, but the Court chose not to rule on that section at this time. The majority consisted of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion:
In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.
Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to the current conditions.
According to NPR, President Obama is “deeply disappointed” with today’s decision by the Supreme Court. He asserts that this decision “upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.” He has called on Congress to “pass a new law that sets up a new formula for determining which states need extra federal supervision.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan in the minority wrote the dissenting opinion. She argued that according to the 15th Amendment it was not the job of the Court to determine the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. She asserted that it was the responsibility to Congress to determine if and when Section 5 is “no longer justifiable.” She wrote:
With overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, [Section 5] should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against back sliding. Those assessments were well within Congress’ province to make and should elicit this Court’s unstinting approbation.
Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, argued quite strenuiously that the restrictions in both Section 4 and Section 5, which cover a total of 9 southern states and “numerous counties” in at least 5 other states, were “necessary to keep them from returning to discriminatory practices.” He also said that the US Justice Department intends to continue monitoring states for “voting changes that may hamper voting rights.” Holder added:
As the President has made clear, Congress needs to act to make sure every American has equal access to the polls. The Department also will work with Congress and other elected and community leaders to formulate potential legislative proposals to address voting rights discrimination – because, on their own, existing statutes cannot totally fill the void left by today’s Supreme Court ruling. And I am hopeful that new protections can and will pass in this session of Congress.
The Voting Rights Act has always had strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, and today’s ruling should not change that. This is not a partisan issue, it’s an American issue – because our democracy is founded on ensuring that every eligible citizen has access to the ballot box.
Texas has already enacted a Voter ID Law, considered to be the “most stringent in the country” by a panel of federal judges who ruled against the law last year. The panel stated that Texas’ proposed voter ID Law “would impose ‘strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,'” and was therefore unconstitutional. However, after today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, officials in Texas have determined that the federal government has no power to stop them.
Greg Abbott, the Texas State Attorney General said in a statement, “With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.” The redistricting maps were blocked by a separate panel of federal judges last year, who ruled that the Texas state government “provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address.”
Read the full decision by SCOTUS here.
What has happened is not surprising in the least. Political conservatives were opposed to civil rights legislation from the very beginning. But they never had any problem with Jim Crow, no matter how cruel or brutal it was.
I will never vote Republican again (which is not to say I endorse the Democrats). This time I will remain a nonvoter for the sake of my conscience.