RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Barnes reports: "The Supreme Court said Friday it will review a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that has been the federal government's most forceful tool in protecting minority rights at the polls. The decision ensures that race and civil rights will be the hallmark of the current Supreme Court term."

In this Aug. 6, 1965 photo, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a ceremony in the President's Room near the Senate Chambers on Capitol Hill in Washington. (photo: AP)
In this Aug. 6, 1965 photo, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a ceremony in the President's Room near the Senate Chambers on Capitol Hill in Washington. (photo: AP)


Supreme Court to Review Key Section of Voting Rights Act

By Robert Barnes, Washington Post

10 November 12

he Supreme Court said Friday it will review a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that has been the federal government's most forceful tool in protecting minority rights at the polls. The decision ensures that race and civil rights will be the hallmark of the current Supreme Court term.

The challenge to Section 5 of the 1964 Voting Rights Act was launched two years ago, and the court added it to its docket just days after an energized minority electorate played a critical role in the reelection of President Obama, the nation's first African American president.

The justices said they would decide whether Congress exceeded its authority in 2006 when it reauthorized a requirement that states and localities with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South, receive federal approval before making any changes to their voting laws.

Three years ago, the court expressed concern about subjecting some states to stricter standards than others using a formula developed decades ago. But the justices sidestepped the constitutional question and found a narrow way to decide that case.

Friday's decision to accept the challenge from Shelby County, Ala., is the court's second major case this term involving race. Last month, the justices heard a challenge to the University of Texas's admissions policy that could redefine or eliminate the use of affirmative action in higher-education admissions.

This month, the court will decide whether to take up another civil rights issue: same-sex marriage. Two appeals courts have declared unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where it is legal. The court must also decide whether to intervene in a decision by federal courts to overturn California's Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders.

But critics say that the method for selecting the places subject to the special supervision - which include nine states and parts of seven others - is outdated. They say Congress should have spent more time investigating whether those classifications still made sense.

"The America that elected and reelected Barack Obama ... is far different than when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965," said Edward Blum of the Project on Fair Representation, which brought the challenge. "Congress unwisely reauthorized a bill that is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp."

But the law's defenders said it has proved its worth just in this election. Courts put on hold redistricting changes in Texas and voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina that they said would dilute minority rights. Courts also forced changes in Florida's new early-voting procedures.

"In the midst of the recent assault on voter access, the Voting Rights Act is playing a pivotal role beating back discriminatory voting measures," said Debo P. Adegbile, acting president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted last spring to uphold the 2006 reauthorization, which passed with lopsided votes in both houses of Congress and was signed with fanfare by President George W. Bush.

U.S. Circuit Judge David S. Tatel wrote that the judicial branch had no reason to second-guess Congress's decision to reauthorize the law.

"Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered," Tatel wrote. "In this context, we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the people's elected representatives."

Conservative legal activists and Republican attorneys general from some of the covered states - Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia - launched challenges to the law after the Supreme Court in 2009 raised questions about its continued constitutionality.

"Things have changed in the South," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in that opinion, which put aside for the time being the constitutional question. "Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels."

Tatel concluded that the 2006 extension met two requirements identified by the Supreme Court: that the burdens imposed by the act were justified by "current needs," and that the discrimination "evil" that Section 5 was meant to eliminate is still concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for "pre-clearance" by federal authorities.

The Obama administration aggressively used Section 5 during this year's election season to challenge restrictions on voting passed by Republican-led legislatures. The states said the changes were meant to combat voter impersonation fraud or make Election Day easier on election officials.

The case is Shelby County v. Holder.

The court also agreed to decide Friday a case from Maryland that pits individual privacy rights against the state's ability to conduct criminal investigations.

The issue is whether police may take DNA samples from those arrested in connection with, but not convicted of, violent crimes. Police took a sample from Alonzo King Jr. in 2009 when he was arrested on assault charges, under a law that authorized gathering DNA from those arrested on charges of violence or burglary.

The sample linked King to an unsolved 2003 rape case.

The Maryland Court of Appeals threw out the rape conviction, saying the collection violated King's constitutional rights and was more intrusive than simply taking fingerprints.

Chief Justice Roberts had stayed the Maryland court's opinion while the court decided whether to review the case, and the collection of DNA samples has continued. Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said the DNA database identifies the perpetrators of "some of our state's most gruesome unsolved cases."

Stephen B. Mercer of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender said he is confident that the court will eventually agree that "that persons who are presumed to be innocent should not be subject to warrantless seizure and indefinite retention of their intensely personal genetic information."

Aaron C. Davis contributed to this report.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+18 # PhilO 2011-10-04 21:58
After graduating from college many years ago I moved back to my home town. That fall I tried to vote in a local election but was turned away because I hadn't changed my voter registration. I felt embarrassed and was treated like a criminal by the poll-watchers. That experience was traumatic enough to send a chill down my spine every time I ave gone to vote since.

I can imagine that the new voter laws will do nothing to curb voter fraud (as if it ever occurs!!), but will dissuade many people who are unsure about their voter registration.

Clearly these laws are a disingenuous ploy meant to keep people away from the polls.
 
 
-11 # MidwestTom 2011-10-05 09:19
When does one learn that one must register to vote? Without registration laws we would go back to the periods where in some districts more votes were cast than there were voters.
 
 
+16 # noitall 2011-10-04 22:40
You know what the republicans say, "we do very well in elections when the turnout is low". All you guys out there pissed off at the Repubs, the Teabaggers and their schenanigans, I know, we all vote for the worst of two evils, but this time the Dems guy is BAD but their guy (whoever that might be) will only be on the ballot because he's REALLY BAD. This is not a good time to demonstrate your pissed-off-dom by not voting. Its like rewarding the guy that gave you a crap sandwitch. I guess I'll vote for bad, I really don't have the stomach for really bad and he might turn out to be really, really bad. This is America today and they wonder why its the youth out there demonstrating. This is THEIR future that we're dealing with here. I was out there in the good old Nam days and it eventually did some good although you'd never know it today or by watching Kerry or any of those other one-time young people. I guess we just decided that we deserve YOURS too. Sorry.
 
 
+12 # Regina 2011-10-04 23:33
The Republican Party is committing the real voting fraud. It's time to blow whistles and get control over enfranchisement -- not in their way of denial but in the American way of inclusion. The noisiest "patriots" are the most criminal anti-patriots this country has ever had to cope with.
 
 
+10 # angelfish 2011-10-05 01:51
Wake up, America! These Fascist ReTHUGlicans will rig the Elections so NO Democrat can win! WHAT are they so afraid of and WHY don't they trust the American People to do the right thing? They rigged Bush's appointments to the Presidency, I hope they don't think that they'll be allowed to get away with that egregious Bull-Puckey again! As their god and mentor George W. Bush once said, "Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on ME!...and NO, Georgie, They WON'T fool us again!
 
 
+18 # maddave 2011-10-05 02:43
This coordinated drive by the GOP to pass nearly identical anti-voter laws in red-state after red-state is an naked, criminal conspiracy to disenfranchise targeted groups of voters.

Time & space preclude a history lesson, but think of the successful voter suppression in Florida & Ohio in 2000 & 2004 . . . before the roof fell in in 2008.

Vowing that "it will never happen again", the GOP embarked on a uniform, organized program to "clean house", and so far their shameless, immoral efforts are succeeding all across America.

So where is the DNC and the DOJ? Why are RICO laws NOT being invoked in this unified case of organized, naked criminal violation of the 1960's Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment to the Constitution?

Steal $50,000 and go to jail. Steal 500,000 votes and go to the White House.
 
 
+7 # fredboy 2011-10-05 07:45
The GOP/teabagger focus is on eventually ending voting altogether. They hate democracy, hate America, and prefer a regime that would dictate their fanatical beliefs.
 
 
+6 # ABen 2011-10-05 09:03
THE VOTE: use it or lose it! Vote Democratic in 2012!
 
 
+5 # fredboy 2011-10-05 09:15
The GOP sees voting as simply a manipulative game, while many of us see it as a cherished and essential right.
Let's make it a felony to deprive any citizen of their right to vote with a five year mandatory prison sentence and a $500,000 fine for each and every offense, with no statute of limitations.
 
 
-18 # MidwestTom 2011-10-05 09:16
Can a person who cannot read or write our language know the issues and cast an intelligent vote?
 
 
+5 # Uncle Joe 2011-10-05 13:24
In a real democracy (the real American Way) we have public education & we engage neighbors & friends to give direction in a positive way. If you KNOW someone who is going to the polls to vote who is incapable of making an informed choice then its up to you & me @ the grass-roots to make them aware and educate them.
 
 
+8 # Regina 2011-10-05 17:08
As the daughter, granddaughter, and niece of immigrants who were schooled in another language, and later qualified for American citizenship, I can tell you with authority that (1) translations are now routinely available for purposes of enhancing comprehension; (2) intelligent thought is not exclusive to literacy in English; (3) you're just flapping the Republican Party line, and none are more uneducable than the echo-chamber Republicans, who keep chanting their mantras even when disproven by the facts.
 
 
+7 # PGreen 2011-10-05 13:27
It may well be that this is the opening shot in a war to further control the political agenda through gerrymandering. It is not a new tactic, but given that the population is polarizing along class lines with an increasingly greater majority on one side, it may be a tctic whose time has come, so to speak. In a democracy, a small minority cannot control a majority without the manufacturing of consent; when this process breaks down, when there is no longer a coherent national narrative to manipulate, then I would expect to see a shift to this kind of tactic. Questions remain: Can we stop it? Will exposure (such as this) make a difference? Will the Democratic party fight it or fold? And what will come next?
 
 
+5 # ALinSTL 2011-10-06 23:01
What FOOLS we are deemed to be...All these years we thought it was the Commies & Al-Queda trying to destroy America, making us all slaves, stealing all our rights...Funny that all this time it has been the TRAITOROUS REPUBLICAN PARTY trying to close our schools, kill our elderly, starve the poor, murder your children, make us their factory slaves, take away all our rights, DESTROY OUR AMERICA FOR THEIR AMERICA. Time to stop them in every election & never let NONE of them EVER hold an American political office again...their motto:" A govt of "US" people, by "US" people & for "US" people..." their "US" will never include any of "us"...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN