Supreme Court's Right-Wing Clique Guts the Voting Rights Act -- After Five Decades of Protecting Minorities, Suddenly, It's 'Unconstitutional'
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority has ruled that the ' legal formula' behind the most powerful section of civil rights era Voting Rights Act—allowing the Justice Department to veto changes in election laws in states and counties with histories of racial discrimination—is outdated and unconstitutional.
“Section 4 is unconstitutional in light of current conditions. In 1966, the formula was rational in both practice and theory,” the Court held, in a 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, referring to the part of the law that allowed the federal government to assess and block racially discriminatory changes in voting laws.
“Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional,” Roberts wrote, gutting the law. “Its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance … Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling essentially invalidates the landmark civil rights era law until Congress revises the part of the law that determines what racial discrimination in voting procedures and elections looks like, which is unlikely given the U.S. House's current GOP majority.
"Today’s decision is a huge setback for civil rights in our nation," said Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center executive director. "It is citizens, specifically the nation’s minorities, who will suffer as a result the votes of 5 Supreme Court Justices. The Roberts Court proved again that it will not be deterred by Supreme Court precedent, the realities on the ground in our nation; nor will it defer to Congress even when the legislative branch is granted clear authority by the Constitution to remedy our nation's long history of discrimination against racial and language minorities."
The ruling comes in an Alabama case where activist Republicans sued to stop the Justice Department or a three-judge appeals court in Washington from vetoing changes in state and local election laws in the 16 states that are covered under the Voting Rights Act. The decision was predicted by election lawyers because the Court’s right-wing justices have previously expressed their frustrations with the law and Congress’ intentional failure not to update its coverage formula section.
The ruling means that the Department of Justice will no longer be able to stop many of the most abusive election practices seen in the 2012 presidential election cycle where Republicans sought to change voting rules to advantage their party. The DOJ used the law to reject racially biased congressional district lines in Texas, to reject Florida’s efforts to curtail early voting and voter registration drives, and to reject new and tougher voter ID laws in other states.
The Voting Right Act of 1964 has been a pillar of the Civil Rights Movement and the section that was declared unconstitutional was the procedural heart of its enforcement tool. Needless to day, civil rights groups, while not surprised at the ruling, say the decision is a historic step backward that empowers more race-based political tactics.
"The Court today declared racism dead in this country despite mountains of evidence to the contrary," Hebert said.
The Republicans have shrewdly but disingenuously argued that race relations in the U.S. have evolved to the point where the Voting Rights Act’s toughest provisions were no longer needed. That is disingenuous because the GOP in 2012 was the political party demonizing voters of color in an effort to deter voter their turnout, including training grassroots groups such as TrueTheVote to police polling places vigilante-style, passing many tougher voter ID laws and even buying billboards to intimidate non-white voters.
The lawyers attacking the Voting Rights Act, pointing to the law’s intricacies, argued that it was heavy-handed and unfairly burdensome to localities that did not deserve the federal oversight. Progressives countered by saying that those localities could opt out of the oversight, but apparently that view did not go very far with the Court’s rightwing majority, all justices appointed by Republican presidents. Like other recent Court decisions on civil rights issues such as affirmative action in university admissions and workplace harassment, the right-wing majority undermined progressive laws by undercutting their core provisions.