Justices Deal Blow to Voting-Rights Act

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling said the decades-old formula Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures is no longer constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the ruling, which was divided along the court's usual ideological lines.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act, a longstanding pillar of civil-rights era legislation, requires many localities, mostly in the South, to seek the approval of the U.S. Justice Department before making any changes to their voting procedures. The case involved Shelby County in Alabama, which is subject to the extra oversight under the law.

See More Coverage »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...LatestHeadlines

@W-Girl, can't do the merge...sorry. JM

From the Chief Justice’s majority opinion:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinarymeasures to address an extraordinary problem. Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permissionbefore enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And §4 of the Actapplied that requirement only to some States—an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty. This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenchedracial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts ofour country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislativemeasures not otherwise appropriate.” Id., at 334. Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were scheduled to expire after five years. See VotingRights Act of 1965, §4(a), 79 Stat. 438.

Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, thatthe conditions that originally justified these measures nolonger characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions….

At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; noone doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment ofthe States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements….

Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, Statesretain broad autonomy in structuring their governmentsand pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. Amdt. 10….

Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equalsovereignty” among the States….

The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basicprinciples. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been preclearedby federal authorities in Washington, D. C.”….

And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and several additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a validly enacted law, its neighborcan typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process….

Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Shelby County contends that the preclearance requirement, even without regard to its disparate coverage, is now unconstitutional. Its arguments have a good deal of force. In the covered jurisdictions, “[v]oter turnout and inatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minoritycandidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 202. The tests and devices that blocked access to the ballot have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years.

The following chart, compiled from the Senate and House Reports, compares voter registration numbers from1965 to those from 2004 in the six originally covered States. These are the numbers that were before Congresswhen it reauthorized the Act in 2006:



…. There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process.

Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices….

In 1965, the States could be divided into two groups: 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 thatdistinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/sup...ec%C2%B7tion%29

Well, I expect the left to go nuts, which makes my day.

But in all fairness, after watching two elections go by with Black Panthers patrolling voting locations with clubs in hand and not even a smackdown from the Injustice Department, this law was in need of repeal. I think SCOTUS actually got something right for a change.

Quote: Eglman wrote in post #2

---

…. There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process.

---