SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
shelby county
10 Years After Supreme Court Gutted Voting Rights, Advocates Say Congress Must Reverse Damage
At least 29 of the voter suppression laws passed since the Shelby v. Holder County decision would have been subject to the preclearance provision that the ruling ended.
Jun 25, 2023
Since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder exactly 10 years ago Sunday, at least 29 states have enacted nearly 100 restrictive laws including many that are racially discriminatory, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.
The nonpartisan law and policy think tank said Friday that at least one-third of the voting restrictions—29 of them—passed in the last decade were enacted in 11 states which would have been subject to preclearance, the anti-discrimination rule that provided crucial protections as part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) before Shelby was decided.
Under preclearance, jurisdictions that had histories of barring people from voting based on their race were required to get federal approval before introducing new voting policies.
"Without this guardrail, voters lost a bulwark against discriminatory voting policies, and states previously subject to preclearance were free to implement discriminatory restrictions on voting access without advance checks," wrote Jasleen Singh and Sara Carter at the Brennan Center. "Many states did exactly that. Along with a prior decision narrowly interpreting constitutional protections for voting rights, Shelby County also sent a message to the nation that the federal courts would no longer play their historic role as a robust protector of voting rights."
"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County. Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."
Texas wasted no time in announcing that a strict voter ID law, previously blocked by preclearance, would go into effect the same day that Shelby was handed down. Similar restrictions, which have been found to have a disproportionate effect on low-income voters and people of color, followed in at least nine states including Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina.
Since 2020—when the coronavirus pandemic upended voting and Republicans spread baseless lies about so-called "voter fraud" after former President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection—GOP state legislators have largely turned their focus to restricting measures that offer flexibility to voters, such as mail-in ballots, said the Brennan Center.
"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County," wrote Singh and Carter. "Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."
"For example," they added, "the Brennan Center studied a 2021 Texas law requiring a voter to include their driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number on mail ballot applications and mail ballots and requiring the number to match the individual’s voter file data. During Texas's March 2022 primary, thousands of mail ballots and mail ballot applications were rejected, disproportionately cast by Latino, Asian, and Black voters."
A number of state legislatures have also taken advantage of the Shelby ruling as they have drawn new district maps.
Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and a senior fellow at the Ford Foundation, said Sunday that she knew in 2013 that the Shelby ruling was "catastrophic," but did not predict that the Republican Party would "turn voter suppression into part of its national policy."
Before 2013, said Democracy Docket, which offers analysis and expert commentary on voting rights, the U.S. Department of Justice had blocked more than 3,000 proposed voter suppression laws under the VRA.
The Brennan Center pointed out that within its ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court stated that Congress could pass a new
"coverage formula" to determine which jurisdictions would be covered by a preclearance provision.
"And it should," wrote Singh and Carter, "by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act to its full strength, as well as the Freedom to Vote Act to set nondiscriminatory baseline national standards for voting and elections."
In an op-ed at Newsweek on Sunday, U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) wrote that another voting rights-related ruling by the Supreme Court earlier this month, Allen v. Milligan, was "energizing" as the high court affirmed that Alabama had racially gerrymandered its electoral map.
However, she said, "we cannot rely on this Supreme Court, or the courts generally, to consistently protect our freedom to vote. We must, together, act."
In addition to passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, she wrote, "we must also engage in robust voter education and outreach efforts, empowering communities with knowledge and resources to help overcome anti-voting barriers."
While Ifill said she did not predict the extent to which the GOP would go to stop marginalized communities from voting, she "also did not predict the extraordinary determination of voters, who, even at the height of a deadly global pandemic refused to be bowed," she said. "That they would stand in line and risk their very lives to vote, despite efforts of Republicans and the indifference of the Supreme Court.
"The Shelby decision was catastrophic, yes," she added. "But we didn't give in and we won't give in. We will find a way to overcome every obstacle to our right to participate as first class citizens in American political life. We will vote and organize and litigate, and legislate until we win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Attorneys for Jones, Pearson Warn Tennessee GOP Against Further Retaliation
"The world is watching Tennessee," the lawyers wrote, adding that any retributive action would be unconstitutional and "require redress."
Apr 10, 2023
Ahead of the Nashville Metropolitan Council voting Monday to reappoint Tennessee Rep. Justin Jones to the state House of Representatives, attorneys for him and ousted Rep. Justin Pearson warned Republican legislators not to further retaliate against the pair.
The letter from the six attorneys, including former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, to Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-25) came after Republicans in the chamber voted last Thursday to expel Jones (D-52) and Pearson (D-86) over their protest in support of gun control after the Covenant School shooting in Nashville.
The missive also follows Pearson saying in a televised interview that he has "heard that people in the state Legislature and in Nashville are actually threatening our Shelby County commissioners to not reappoint me, or they're going to take away funding that's in the government's budget for projects that the mayor and others have asked for."
The GOP state lawmakers expelled Jones and Pearson "not for any criminal or unethical act, but for merely exercising their constitutional rights," the Democrats' lawyers wrote. "In so acting, the House Republicans not only wrongfully stripped these representatives of their rights as duly-elected legislators but also disenfranchised the voters they were elected to represent."
"Their partisan expulsion was extraordinary, illegal, and without any historical or legal precedent," the attorneys continued. "The House must not now compound its errors by further retributive actions."
\u201cIt\u2019s been the honor of my life to serve District 86 as their State House Representative. I want nothing more than to serve again & I\u2019m thankful that Scott Crosby @burchporter is representing us alongside @brotherjones_ & @EricHolder. May we continue to build this Movement! #TN3\u201d— Justin J. Pearson (@Justin J. Pearson) 1681148544
Should the Metro Nashville Council and Shelby County Commission vote to reinstate Jones and Pearson, the letter states, "such reappointment must lead to the full and immediate restoration of their rights as members of the House."
They "should be promptly sworn back in as members of the General Assembly and granted the same benefits, rights, duties, and liberties as any other member," the letter asserts. "That includes, but is not limited to, returning their parking and badge access to the state Capitol, which was cut off before their expulsion, restoring their benefits, including healthcare, which was immediately cut off upon expulsion, returning their status on committees, and being allowed to, in all manners, conduct legislative business the same as any other member."
"The world is watching Tennessee," the letter declares. "Any partisan retributive action, such as the discriminatory treatment of elected officials, or threats or actions to withhold funding for government programs, would constitute further unconstitutional action that would require redress."
In a statement Monday evening, Tennessee House Majority Leader William Lamberth (R-44) and Republican Caucus Chairman Jeremy Faison (R-11) said that "should any expelled member be reappointed, we will welcome them. Like everyone else, they are expected to follow the rules of the House as well as state law."
Jones returned to the House for Monday's evening session, fist raised.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular