US supreme court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act – live updates
LIVEJustices have ruled unconstitutional a section of the Voting Rights Act designed to protect the rights of minorities
Holder: "I am deeply disappointed - deeply disappointed" in the judgment.
He reiterates that this law was extended in 2006, by President Bush, with a "unanimous" vote in the senate and a "near-unanimous vote" in the House.
He mentions a case from last year in which Latino voters were discriminated against. The case's court ruling said there was "more evidence form discriminatory intent" in this case than they had "space for." Without review, Holder says, the discriminatory law "would have been implemented immediately."
Attorney general Eric Holder is giving his statement now.
Senator Chuck Schumer is not sugarcoating it:
Schumer: "As long as [GOP] have a majority in the House and Democrats don't have 60 votes in the Senate, there will be no preclearance."
The Guardian's Ed Pilkington gets the reaction from someone at the forefront of the challenge to the VRA:
I've just spoken to Frank "Butch" Ellis, the attorney for Shelby County in Alabama who was at the centre of the challenge to the Act. Ellis has been county attorney for the past 49 years - he was in the job even in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed.He welcomed the supreme court ruling because he said it recognised that places like Shelby County and other areas covered by the act had changed in the past 50 years. He said that Alabama in 1965 "was a different time, a different place, it didn't resemble what it is now. I know there was discrimination in 1965, but I also know that what we were doing then is not a relevant barometer of what we are doing now in 2013. It's not fair to over-ride our sovereign jurisdiction based on a formula that is almost 50 years old."
President Obama's statement
From the White House:
I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.As a nation, we’ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote. But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists. And while today’s decision is a setback, it doesn’t represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination. I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.
Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist and MSNBC personality, says that the supreme court "just canceled the dream" of Martin Luther King Jr.
And congressman John Lewis, a leader of the civil rights movement, is similarly disappointed:
Congressman John Lewis watches Voting Rights decision with . He says he is "sad and dismayed."
The Guardian's Washington bureau chief, Dan Roberts, has been going through the ruling. He writes:
In striking down section four, the supreme court suspended the 48-year-old electoral protections for minority voters in several southern states, arguing that improvements in racial equality meant they were no longer warranted.But rather than reject the 1965 Voting Rights Act entirely, the court has asked Congress to reassess the criteria used to decide which states must abide by the special rules in section five, which currently force nine states to run any electoral law changes past the government in Washington first.Chief justice Roberts presented the decision as a sign of progress. “Voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that,” he wrote in the majority opinion. “The question is whether the Act's extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the states, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.”The justices who voted in the majority, largely along the ideological split that divides the court, pointed to evidence showing that voter registration among African Americans was now higher than white voters in four of the five original states targeted by the legislation.“Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, voter turnout and registration rates in covered jurisdictions now approach parity,” said the majority opinion. “Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare and minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”In summary: the VRA has worked, so it’s no longer needed. But that logic has already infuriated civil rights campaigners who view it as a vital protection again future discriminatory attempts to frustrate African American voters.Justice Ginsberg, who dissented from the majority opinion along with three other liberal judges on the court, argued the act's success was the very reason to preserve it. “Althought the VRA wrought dramatic changes in the realization of minority voting rights, the Act, to date, surely has not eliminated all vestiges of discrimination against the exercise of the franchise by minority citizens,” she said in a decision read from the bench.
Updated
Michael Waldman, president of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice- a leading research body on voting rights - is also calling on Congress to "upgrade" the VRA:
The Supreme Court’s decision is at odds with recent history. The Voting Rights Act was vital in 2012, not just 1965. For nearly five decades, it has been the nation’s most effective tool to eradicate racial discrimination in voting. And it is still critical today. Last year, Section 5 helped block laws making it harder to vote. There is a path forward. Section 5 stands. Congress now has the duty to upgrade this key protection and ensure our elections remain free, fair, and accessible for all Americans.
The Democratic National Committee already has a petition up that reads, "The Supreme Court has struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act. This is disappointing, but the fight is not over. Stand with Democrats who are fighting to protect the right to vote for every American."
A DNC email from Donna Brazile has also been sent out, saying, "Stand with Democrats who are fighting Republican attacks on voting rights."
The attorney general will speak about the ruling in less than an hour.
Some reactions from legal commentators and others:
Pete Williams, legal analyst for NBC News calls this "a huge defeat for the civil rights community on the most important civil rights law ever passed."
NYU election law expert Rick Pildes, speaking to the Washington Post,has more mixed opinions than some of the "hyperbole" out there"
What does worry Pildes is the possibility that section 5 has deterred localities from creating harmful ballot box regulations and that without it local governments would move to make it harder for disadvantaged groups to vote. But there are other tools there, he says, that could work to avert that. “There are a lot of other laws by now, both statutes at the national and local level, that provide mechanisms for challenging objections to voting,” he notes. “These voter ID laws, those were struck down in many parts of the country through litigation under state constitutions in areas that section 5 doesn’t apply to.”
Senator Pat Leahy, chair of the Senate judiciary committee, is upset with the ruling and promises "immediate" action in a statement:
"Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has protected minorities of all races from discriminatory practices in voting for nearly 50 years, yet the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the coverage formula effectively guts the ability of Section 5 to protect voters from discriminatory practices," he said in a release. "I could not disagree more with this result or the majority’s rationale. The Voting Rights Act has been upheld five times by the Supreme Court on prior occasions, and Section 5 was reauthorized and signed into law by a Republican President in 2006 after a thorough and bipartisan process in which Congress overwhelmingly determined that the law was still vital to protecting minority voting rights and that the coverage formula determining the jurisdictions to be covered was still applicable.He continued: "Several lower court decisions in recent years have found violations of the Voting Rights Act and evidence of intentional discrimination in covered jurisdictions. Despite this sound record, and the weight of history, a narrow majority has decided today to substitute its own judgment over the exhaustive legislative findings of Congress. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I intend to take immediate action to ensure that we will have a strong and reconstituted Voting Rights Act that protects against racial discrimination in voting."
Updated
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the minority's dissent (which she read from the bench), applies the argument that might have popped up in your head while read the majority's opinion: that perhaps conditions aren't the same anymore because the Voting Rights Act has worked.
Justice Ginsburg: 'Throwing out preclearance...is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet'
She appeals to Congress' right to reauthorize the legislation (as it did most recently based in 2006) on its own judgment, based on current conditions, and lists a number of recent examples of where discrimination has taken place.
The record supporting the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA is also extraordinary. It was described by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee as “one of the most extensive considerations of any piece of legislation that the United States Congress has dealt with in the 27½ years” he had served in the House...After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was the judgment of Congress that “40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.” ... That determination of the body empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments “by appropriate legislation” merits this Court’s utmost respect. In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision.
Section 5, the "preclearance" requirement for states and localities that want to change their voting laws, remains intact. But until a new formula for section 4 can be drafted in Congress, it is rendered ineffective. That's a big deal.
Pete Williams: 'It's a huge defeat for the civil rights community on the most important civil rights law ever passed.'
Updated
The court's opinion, as laid out in the syllabus of Shelby County, Alabama vs. Holder, is that the court's justification for upholding the law in the '60s - that "the coverage formula [was] rational in both practice and theory" - no longer applicable, as conditions "have changed dramatically."
Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5’s restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and theyhave grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision.
And so the majority considers two major parts composing the Section 4 formula - the use "tests and devices" for discrimination (cause) and lower voter turnouts among minorities (effect) - outdated.
Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. The formula captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s. But such tests have been banned for over 40 years. And voter registration and turnout numbers in covered States have risen dramatically. In 1965, the States could be divided into those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.
Therefore, the majority says, if Congress is going to single out certain states, it would need to revisit the formula.
To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions.
Updated
This is Jim Newell in Washington. In a landmark decision, the US supreme court has struck down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in a five to four decision, along ideological lines.
The Voting Rights Act is designed to protect the rights of minorities to vote, and Section 4 determines the formula for which states should be covered under the law. But Section 5, which many thought would be struck down, remains in force. That requires "pre-clearance" for certain states with a history of discrimination to change their voting laws.
The court says Congress could revisit the formula. But it is not likely that this Congress would reach much of an agreement anytime soon.
We'll have more news and analysis coming up.
No comments:
Post a Comment