High court voids key part of Voting Rights Act
MARK SHERMAN, AP
WASHINGTON
(AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the
landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up
with a new way of determining which
states and localities require federal monitoring of elections.
The
justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed
in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress
and changes in U.S. society.
The
court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law
that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to
minority voters in the nearly half century
since it was first enacted in 1965. But the justices did say lawmakers
must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must
seek Washington's approval, in advance, for election changes.
Chief
Justice John Roberts said for the conservative majority that Congress
"may draft another formula based on current conditions."
The
decision comes five months after President Barack Obama, the nation's
first black chief executive, started his second term in the White House,
re-elected by a diverse coalition of
voters.
The
high court is in the midst of a broad re-examination of the ongoing
necessity of laws and programs aimed at giving racial minorities access
to major areas of American life from which
they once were systematically excluded. The justices issued a modest
ruling Monday that preserved affirmative action in higher education and
will take on cases dealing with anti-discrimination sections of a
federal housing law and another affirmative action
case from Michigan next term.
The
court warned of problems with the voting rights law in a similar case
heard in 2009. The justices averted a major constitutional ruling at
that time, but Congress did nothing to address
the issues the court raised. The law's opponents, sensing its
vulnerability, filed several new lawsuits.
The
latest decision came in a challenge to the advance approval, or
preclearance, requirement, which was brought by Shelby County, Ala., a
Birmingham suburb.
The
lawsuit acknowledged that the measure's strong medicine was appropriate
and necessary to counteract decades of state-sponsored discrimination
in voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment's
guarantee of the vote for black Americans.
But
it asked whether there was any end in sight for a provision that
intrudes on states' rights to conduct elections, an issue the court's
conservative justices also explored at the argument
in February. It was considered an emergency response when first enacted
in 1965.
The
county noted that the 25-year extension approved in 2006 would keep
some places under Washington's oversight until 2031 and seemed not to
account for changes that include the elimination
of racial disparity in voter registration and turnout or the existence
of allegations of race-based discrimination in voting in areas of the
country that are not subject to the provision.
The
Obama administration and civil rights groups said there is a continuing
need for it and pointed to the Justice Department's efforts to block
voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas
last year, as well as a redistricting plan in Texas that a federal
court found discriminated against the state's large and growing Hispanic
population.
Advance
approval was put into the law to give federal officials a potent tool
to defeat persistent efforts to keep blacks from voting.
The
provision was a huge success because it shifted the legal burden and
required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their
proposed changes would not discriminate. Congress
periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent extension
was overwhelmingly approved by a Republican-led Congress and signed by
President George W. Bush.
The
requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and
Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California,
Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local
jurisdictions in Michigan. Coverage has been triggered by past
discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American
Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.
Towns
in New Hampshire that had been covered by the law were freed from the
advance approval requirement in March. Supporters of the provision
pointed to the ability to bail out of the
prior approval provision to argue that the law was flexible enough to
accommodate change and that the court should leave the Voting Rights Act
intact.
On Monday, the Justice Department announced an agreement that would allow Hanover County, Va., to bail out.
No comments:
Post a Comment