As you may know (and this NPR article fully explains), the Supreme Court will consider the future application of some provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on Wednesday. Currently, the Voting Rights Act requires certain states and localities to clear proposed changes to voting rules with the federal government (much like a sort of "prior review" for areas with a history of discrimination). The question in consideration by the Supreme Court is whether such "pre-clearance" is now an undue and unwarranted burden on jurisdictions that must still legally comply.
Shelby County, Alabama is arguing that "immense
progress since 1965 in rooting out official discrimination" renders the provision baseless, "unjustifiably subjecting some states to unequal treatment and violating their
constitutional prerogative to regulate elections within their borders." In addition, the county's lawyers assert, " The
formula Congress used to sort out which states are subject to pre-clearance and
which aren’t... is out of date."
However, the Editorial Board of The Washington Post disagrees, citing persistent voting discrimination techniques (they call gerrymandering for the sake of "slic[ing] and dic[ing] minority populations into myriad districts to limit their electoral
influence" an "oil poison in new bottles") as evidence that "the Voting Rights Act's work isn't finished."
Their thesis concludes, "In
reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act seven years ago, a bipartisan majority of
lawmakers — 390 to 33 in the House, 98 to 0 in the Senate — determined that the
evidence justified maintaining pre-clearance. Shelby County and its allies have
not given the high court reason enough to repudiate Congress’s resounding
judgment."
Do you agree with the WP Editorial Board that "the Voting Rights Act's work isn't finished?" If so, what evidence is there to support the need for the "pre-clearance" provision? If not, what evidence is there to demonstrate that this provision of the Voting Rights Act did its job and is ready to retire?
TL;DR? Time to look ourselves in the mirror, nation. How much have we really changed?
1 comment:
Its hard to say the work of the Voting Rights Act is finished when we still have states trying to pass voter ID laws and other forms of "regulation" that really just add an undue burden onto voters. Justice Scalia has openly called the act a "racial entitlement." As discussed on the Lawrence O'Donnell show, the Voting Rights Act cannot be completely irrelevant, if Section 5 has been used to strike down many attempted laws in even recent years. This doesn't go to say that as a nation, we have not improved since the Voting Rights Act was passed, however, some tactics have perhaps merely gotten more subtle. The problem still exists, though not as bold and open as before. So for now, the Voting Rights Act should probably stick around.
Post a Comment