by David G. Savage
The Supreme Court narrowed, but did not overturn, the historic Voting Rights Act today, ruling that municipalities across the South which have had a clean record for the past decade can seek an exemption from the law.
The decision came as a relief to civil rights advocates, who feared the high court was prepared to invalidate the law.
Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act has required states and municipalities in the South to "pre-clear" any changes in their voting or election standards with the Justice Department in Washington.
Three years ago, Congress extended this provision for another 25 years, but it was challenged by a small Texas water district as unfair and outdated.
The case had set the stage for a potentially broad ruling by the high court's conservative bloc. But in the end, the court agreed on a unanimous ruling that preserves the law, but narrows its effect. States across the South from the Carolinas to Texas will remain subject to the law and its Section 5, the provision that requires voting changes to cleared in advance.
But counties, cities and school districts can now go to court and ask to "bail out" of the law. To win an exemption, the municipality must have clean record for the past decade, with no finding that they had restricted voting rights during that time.
"Things have changed in the South," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in announcing the decision. Blacks now register and vote in the same percentages as whites, he said.
"These improvements are no doubt due in significant part to the Voting Rights Act itself and stand as a monument to its success," he said. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements.''
Today's decision could also affect some municipalities in California, New York and Arizona. They were brought under the law in the 1970s because they had a high percentage of non-speaking residents.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome, but said he would have gone further and struck down Section 5 of the Act as unconstitutional.
Civil rights groups praised the decision not to go that far.
"This is a Pyrrhic victory for those who were behind bringing this case," said Jon Greenbaum, legal director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "We are glad that Section 5 of the VotingRights Act remains intact to protect the rights of voters."
Comments
“The Supreme Court narrowed, but did not overturn, the historic Voting Rights Act today, . . .”
.
No, Mr. Savage, you are wrong. The Court did not “narrow” or alter the VRA at all. The jurisdictions subject to the VRA are still subject to it. The same discriminatory practices by states and their political subdivisions that were outlawed in 1965 are still against the law. Those seeking exemption from operation of the VRA’s preclearance provisions must still seek relief from the District Court and/or the Attorney General. In fact, the most controversial part of the VRA (i.e., §5) is still intact because the Court entirely avoided adjudicating its constitutionality.
.
What the Court did was simply determine that a water district - which holds elections - is eligible to bring a suit to exempt itself from the preclearance provisions of the VRA. In so holding, the Court neither expanded nor narrowed the scope of the VRA. The Court based this ruling on Congress’ 1982 amendment to the VRA in which it expressly provided that exemption was also available to “‘political subdivisions’ in a covered State, ‘though [coverage] determinations were not made with respect to such subdivision as a separate unit.’” Thus, Congress had already expanded the definition of the term “political subdivision” and the Court merely enforced the terms of the law as Congress wrote it. That’s what courts are supposed to do.
Posted by: John W. | June 22, 2009 12:58 PM
Once again, Silent Clarence shows his true colors.
Posted by: ornery | June 22, 2009 1:09 PM
Do white men have the legal ability to determine if minorities and women have or can keep the right to vote? Could the supreme court rule the voting rights act illegal, therefore eliminating the right to vote for the majority of Americans? If the court ruled against the right to vote for minorities would it mean our president could not vote in the next election? When the country is half minorities in 25 yrs will 25% of the population (white males) technically have the right to strip them of their right to vote? How can minorities say it is their country if their right to vote is conditional? Would white males fight and die for the country if their votes were conditional based on some minorities and how they felt?
Will someone make sense of this to me.
Posted by: Olmec | June 22, 2009 1:17 PM
The Obama Effect has many manifestations.
As in: Iran. Iranians, having seen Obama topple the Republican Party like a top-heavy statue of Saddam, decided, "Why can't we do the same?"
And those 8 votes on this case:
Do you really think there were 8 votes for this decision before the Cairo speech and the obvious embrace of the Iranian mullahs of 1964 Deep South methods of tallying votes?
Yes, in this case, the Supreme Court followed the election returns--this time, the Iranian election returns.
Posted by: ornery | June 22, 2009 2:55 PM