The U.S. Supreme Court has
upheld the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to have their
election rules “precleared” by the Department of Justice.
Opponents had argued that President Barack Obama’s election shows the preclearance provisions are relics of a bygone era. They pointed to the record registration and turnout of African American voters as further proof that the mission of the Voting Rights has been accomplished.
Writing for an eight-member majority, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. acknowledged:
The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable. When it was first passed, unconstitutional discrimination was rampant and the “registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead” of black registration in many covered States.
Hinting that Section 5’s days may be numbered, Roberts noted:
Today, the registration gap between white and black voters is in single digits in the covered States; in some of those States, blacks now register and vote at higher rates than whites…Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.
Rep. Barbara Lee, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in a statement:
By an overwhelming 8 to 1 majority the Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to turn the clock back on civil rights and acknowledged Congress’s authority to protect the right to vote.
With the exception of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Justices of the Supreme Court understand the importance of the Voting Rights Act and the progress this country has made since 1964.
As a result of today’s ruling, the VRA and its “preclearance” provision remain effective tools in this nation’s ongoing struggle to guarantee an equal vote to all, regardless of race.
In Thomas’ worldview, black folks have overcome:
Congress passed §5 of the VRA in 1965 because that promise had remained unfulfilled for far too long. But now—more than 40 years later––the violence, intimidation, and subterfuge that led Congress to pass §5 and this Court to uphold it no longer remains. An acknowledgment of §5’s unconstitutionality represents a fulfillment of the Fifteenth Amendment’s promise of full enfranchisement and honors the success achieved by the VRA.
Thomas conveniently ignores the racial disparities in voters’ experiences on Election Day 2008. And don’t get me started on the voting rights violations in the 2000
election.
Perhaps Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be able to talk some sense into her fellow Yale Law grad when she joins him on the bench.
The case is Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder. Background info is available here.