In an earlier demonstration, protesters pleaded with the high court to 'protect their vote' and preserve the important oversight provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (Photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
Jun 25, 2013
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court Tuesday has "sounded the death knell" for a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laying a blow to the millions of Americans who are dependent on Congressional oversight for fair elections.
"What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act," said Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis, following the news of the vote, which gutted the Act from protective provisions that had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
This ruling "threatens to make second-class citizens out of millions of Americans," added watchdog group, Common Cause.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
"Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the Voting Rights Act," wrote Ginsburg, adding, "When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress' power to act is at its height."
The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.
Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, "is without significance," writes the New York Times.
By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data--according to the ruling--for determining which states should be covered. However, according to SCOTUSblog, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this "will be exceptionally difficult politically."
And according to analysts, "the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small," the New York Times reports.
"In practice, in reality, it's probably the death knell of this provision," notedSCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein.
The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit on the basis that Section 5 had "outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states," after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.
"The sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective," lamented the dissenting justices.
"Discrimination at the ballot box is a real problem and causes real harm to our democracy," added Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement blasting the ruling. "This ruling is a major step backwards in the ongoing fight for a truly free and fair democracy and democratic system."
_____________________
Join Us: Everything is on the Line
The future of all that we cherish is on the line and we have to fight like hell to protect democracy, human decency, and a liveable planet. The last line of defense is people who understand what’s at stake—activists, writers, thinkers, doers, and everyday people who see what is happening, know in their hearts that a better world is possible, and are willing to fight for it. You are one of the good people Common Dreams was built for. We provide independent news, progressive opinion, and crucial analysis on the day’s most important issues. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. But to keep publishing and remain strong in these dangerous times, we need your support. So we’re asking you today: Will you donate to our Fall Campaign and keep the progressive, nonprofit journalism of Common Dreams alive? |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court Tuesday has "sounded the death knell" for a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laying a blow to the millions of Americans who are dependent on Congressional oversight for fair elections.
"What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act," said Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis, following the news of the vote, which gutted the Act from protective provisions that had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
This ruling "threatens to make second-class citizens out of millions of Americans," added watchdog group, Common Cause.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
"Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the Voting Rights Act," wrote Ginsburg, adding, "When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress' power to act is at its height."
The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.
Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, "is without significance," writes the New York Times.
By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data--according to the ruling--for determining which states should be covered. However, according to SCOTUSblog, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this "will be exceptionally difficult politically."
And according to analysts, "the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small," the New York Times reports.
"In practice, in reality, it's probably the death knell of this provision," notedSCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein.
The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit on the basis that Section 5 had "outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states," after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.
"The sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective," lamented the dissenting justices.
"Discrimination at the ballot box is a real problem and causes real harm to our democracy," added Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement blasting the ruling. "This ruling is a major step backwards in the ongoing fight for a truly free and fair democracy and democratic system."
_____________________
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court Tuesday has "sounded the death knell" for a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laying a blow to the millions of Americans who are dependent on Congressional oversight for fair elections.
"What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act," said Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis, following the news of the vote, which gutted the Act from protective provisions that had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
This ruling "threatens to make second-class citizens out of millions of Americans," added watchdog group, Common Cause.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
"Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the Voting Rights Act," wrote Ginsburg, adding, "When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress' power to act is at its height."
The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.
Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, "is without significance," writes the New York Times.
By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data--according to the ruling--for determining which states should be covered. However, according to SCOTUSblog, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this "will be exceptionally difficult politically."
And according to analysts, "the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small," the New York Times reports.
"In practice, in reality, it's probably the death knell of this provision," notedSCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein.
The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit on the basis that Section 5 had "outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states," after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.
"The sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective," lamented the dissenting justices.
"Discrimination at the ballot box is a real problem and causes real harm to our democracy," added Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement blasting the ruling. "This ruling is a major step backwards in the ongoing fight for a truly free and fair democracy and democratic system."
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.