Join Our Mailing List
For Email Marketing you can trust

(IPS) Activists Converge on High Court for Challenge to Voting Rights Act

This article first appeared on the Inter-Press Service website at:

ATLANTA, Georgia, Feb 26 2013 (IPS) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a challenge to the constitutionality of key sections of the historic Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. 

Numerous organisations are rallying in support of the VRA. Activists across the nation, including Dr. Charles Steele, CEO of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), are traveling to Washington, DC to protest outside of the court.

“Everything has changed, but nothing has changed,” Dr. Steele told IPS.

We’ve got folks in our generation who think we have arrived. I tell you, you think you have arrived, but you got off at the wrong station.


“Everything has really gone backwards in terms of our successes. If we let this go, if we sit idly by, then we’re destined for failure. We’re not going to rest on our laurels because we have a black president. We’re going to take to the streets and that’s where we’re heading,” he said.

“We’ve got folks in our generation who think we have arrived. I tell you, you think you have arrived, but you got off at the wrong station – you got to get back on the bus,” he said.

Even though black people in the U.S. have ostensibly had the right to vote since 1870 under the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution, several federal Voting Rights Acts were enacted in 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 to address discriminatory election practices at the state and local levels.

Section 5 of the VRA of 1965 is one of the strongest enforcement provisions of the Act. It requires that the justice department preclear any changes to “any standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting”, including district maps, in any of the “covered jurisdictions”, which include all or part of 16 U.S. states, mainly in the U.S. south.

The case, known as Shelby County, Alabama v. Attorney General Robert Holder, argues that, on its face, the 2006 Congressional reauthorisation of sections of the Act was unconstitutional because it was based on historical data of racial discrimination in election practices that are no longer relevant.

“That’s actually not true,” Lisa Bornstein, senior counsel and senior policy analyst for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, told IPS. “We have loads of examples, continuing to this day, there are voting discriminatory practices happening in covered jurisdictions.”

The justice department recently blocked voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas that, if not blocked, would have been in place during the November 2012 elections.

“Also, there are redistricting efforts. In Texas there was an attempt to redistrict so that Hispanics, who are now 65 percent of the growth, to limit that voting power by the way of redistricting,” Bornstein said.

“Then there’s examples like changing the date of an election, changing the place of an election.
Some of them are done to have a discriminatory impact,” she said.

Examples of modern-day discrimination in covered jurisdictions are in the thousands.

In 2008, the City of Calera, Alabama redrew one of its City Council districts to reduce the black voting population from 69 percent to 29 percent, leading to an incumbent black councilmember, Ernest Montgomery, losing his seat.

The justice department intervened, requiring the city to redraw the lines and hold a new election, in which he was reelected. That action led to the current Supreme Court challenge by Shelby County, in which Calera is located.

In another example, in 2001, the justice department objected after the all-white town government in Kilmichael, Mississippi tried to cancel an election shortly after black citizens had become a majority. When the citizens of Kilmichael finally voted, they elected the town’s first black mayor and three black aldermen.

The Act also provides that covered jurisdictions can petition to “bail out” of Section 5. Beginning in 1982, jurisdictions could bail out if they could prove they had complied with a list of nondiscrimination requirements for 10 years.

In addition, the Act provides that the new jurisdictions can be “bailed in”.

Congress reauthorised the VRA of 1965 in 1970, 1975, 1982, and in 2006.

In 1975, Congress expanded Section 5’s reach to cover jurisdictions that had engaged in widespread discrimination against “language minority” groups.

In 2006, Congress held extensive hearings on the VRA and the continued need for Section 5 today, considering some 15,000 pages of legislative record.

The 2006 reauthorisation was approved 98 to zero in the Senate, and 390 to 33 in the House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court has upheld Section 5 of the VRA several times, including in 1966, in a landmark case, South Carolina v. Katzenbach; and again in 1973, 1980, and 1999.

More recently, in 2009, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey, the Supreme Court issued a ruling expanding the types of jurisdictions that could bail out of Section 5 coverage. The Municipal Utility District had not been previously been considered an independent enough district to be eligible to bail out.

Since that decision, 127 additional jurisdictions have bailed out. “It’s not a particularly onerous process,” Bornstein said.

“That’s part of the beauty of this law and why we believe it’s constitutional. This law allows for flexibility in case there’s overinclusiveness or underinclusiveness, to make sure the law as a whole functions properly,” she said.

In the Northwest Austin ruling, the court acknowledged the progress made in covered jurisdictions since 1965, attributing this progress to the VRA itself, noting that the progress may be “insufficient and that conditions [may] continue to warrant preclearance under the Act.”

The court added that “the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by cur­rent needs.” This language has led some legal scholars and pundits to predict that Section 5 of the VRA might be in danger altogether, especially given the fact that the Supreme Court chose to hear the current case.

But advocates do not believe the section is in danger because they believe the current burdens are met by current needs.

“It would be a big step for the Court to determine that [the reauthorisation was unconstitutional]. Congress has the authority to make this determination. The court cannot second guess if what Congress has done was reasonable,” she said.

As previously reported by IPS, there were numerous voter suppression laws and tactics in place during the November 2012 elections, representing a new generation of Jim Crow laws.

Some of these activities occurred in jurisdictions not covered by Section 5 and did not require preclearance by the justice department. However, Section 2 of the VRA of 1965 allows the justice department to bring case-by-case litigation in non-covered jurisdictions, something Section 5 attempts to avoid in historically discriminatory jurisdictions.


Comments (3)

Steve Swimmer
Said this on 2-26-2013 At 11:03 pm

The 5 SCOTUS right wingers care not for the law you site.  They will rule with thier collective iron fist.  Justice be damned.

And, speaking of the Supreme's right wing 5th wheel, anyone see Justice Clarence Thomas, a/k/a/ “Stephen” in Django?

Throughout the “Stephen” parts, the Justice Thomas similarities are so striking from now on Justice Clarence Thomas shall be dubbed with his new found a/k/a, “Stephen of Django.” 

Here, the Justice Clarence Thomas of our Great Nation’s slave era, “Stephen” played with such realism by Mr. Jackson was so stunning and so on target: The portrayal cannot be mere coincidence.  Both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Tarantino are really smart and as on top of things as they are, no way they made such a close likeness, unless by design.

Probably wishing to keep this under the table, they may well deny they did it on purpose; still, look at the character similarities between “Stephen” and today’s version of the same man, Justice Clarence Thomas; and, then, I’m sure you will agree with me: they had to do that with purpose.

Good work, Mr. Jackson.  Clearly the memory of Dr. King is still within you.  Many thanks and much respect for you and Mr. Tarantino: but, I just have to ask: did you study the movements and attitudes of Justice Thomas in order to capture him so completely in “Stephen”?

Burroughston Broch
Said this on 3-3-2013 At 10:11 pm

African-Americans will escape slavery only when they put it behind them, and not use it as an excuse for poor performance and as a pretense for political blackmail.

The Irish put the excuse behind them, as did the Scots-Irish, the Germans, the Lithuanians. They all felt the boot of discrimination. My Scots-Irish ancestors came to this country in the 1750s as indentured servants with an indenture period of 10 years; they were effectively slaves. Yes, it was not for life, but it was for almost 1/3 of the normal life span then.

Ending the VRA would be a good start.

Ajay Jain
Said this on 3-4-2013 At 03:42 pm

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone's constitutional rights. We not only need to keep the protections in the current Voting Rights Act, it should be expanded. The numerous despicable attempts to restrict voting made during the last election cycle are proof of that. Anyone who truly believes the VRA is obsolete needs to recognize, given last years voter suppression efforts, the Jim Crowe era is biding its time, lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to rear its head once again. The entire nation will speak against it because the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is not about political parties; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is about individual rights protection. Bank on it! it is time to review; the Supreme Court's "entitlements" as, it is no longer acting as an unbiased institution and that, your magistrates , can be amended. get up and do your job or we will make it happen! count on it! Now Even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights law on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end's on this ? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ? Well I will tell you what I think. I think there may be a dozen or two, man and women in America that have the means to buy the power it wants to call all shots in this Country. The only way they can obtain this right now is get the people they went in office. To buy them so to say. But they know they can be stopped at the voting polls.They know the more that get out and vote there chances are reduced substantially. George Will knows this and should be ashamed. He say 47 years old. Is that old ? I don't think so. Look at the constitution, at that II Amendment a lot older right. SS, Medicare, still very new in the big picture. But look at who wants to change them. Not working men and women, no the big bosses. They do not like to mach payments that is what this is all about. They did not like it back in the 1930s and they do not like it now. So Americans do not be fooled and all of you older people that now have this little benefit fight like h--- to keep it just as it is. It just might be all there is between eating and striving !!
All the republicans crapping about The Voting Rights Act (VRA) on this board and the likes of you in the REPUBLICAN House should move aside in 2014 because the REPUBLICANS are the crux of the problem. President Obama won the elections of 2008 AND 2012 fair and square but the REPUBLICANS are not allowing him to govern through their rule of RECORD number of filibusters in the Senate and the HOUSE of REPUBLICANS has achieved nothing since it came to power in 2010. In 2014 its the REPUBLICAN's time to go and let OBAMA our democratically elected PRESIDENT rule the country and leave a legacy behind like the achievements of the 2008-2010 years when DEMOCRATS had the House Senate and the Presidency. We want the obstructionist REPUBLICANS out of the way in 2014. We want our House and Senate back in the DEMOCRATIC hands so we can govern and achieve something. All these doomsday fiscal deadlines that REPUBLICANS keep pushing on the country will haunt them in 2014!! Mark my words. March 4th 2013. Vote Democratic always!

Post a Comment
* Your Name:
* Your Email:
(not publicly displayed)
Reply Notification:
* Security Image:
Security Image Generate new
Copy the numbers and letters from the security image:
* Message:

Please use this form to contact us
Your Name:
Your Email:

Email to Friend

Fill in the form below to send this news item to a friend:

Email to Friend
* Your Name:
* Your Email:
* Friend's Name:
* Friend's Email:
* Security Image:
Security Image Generate new
Copy the numbers and letters from the security image
* Message: