Supreme Court Strikes Major Part Of Voting Rights Act

June 26, 2013

A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act that applies to five Florida counties, leading to protests from voting-rights organizations that said the change will make it more difficult to protect citizens’ access to the ballot box.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the formula Congress established in the 2006 version of the law to single out so-called “covered jurisdictions” like the five Florida counties is antiquated. That formula, based on data from the 1960s and 1970s, is used to decide which parts of the country must submit almost any changes in voting laws or practices to the federal government for approval, a procedure known as “preclearance.”

“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts was joined by the more-conservative members of the high court, including Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

But in a dissent joined by all of the more-liberal members of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the section of the voting of the law struck down by the court was crafted specifically to make sure that discriminatory voting laws never returned to areas of the country that had used them to bar minorities from participating in elections.

“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” Ginsburg wrote. ” … The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective.”

Joining Ginsburg’s opinion were Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Florida officials said the ruling would allow them to more fairly administer elections in Florida without waiting for approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. Secretary of State Ken Detzner said the state spent more than $500,000 last year to secure preclearance for its voting changes.

Parts of a 2011 state elections law were either struck down by courts or altered to get approval from the D.C. court.

“Any time we have the opportunity to make our own decisions, I think that’s great for our state,” Gov. Rick Scott told reporters Tuesday following the state Cabinet meeting.

Five Florida counties have been covered by preclearance: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough and Monroe. But failure to gain preclearance for laws in those counties has put any changes in jeopardy across the state.

There will be some limits to the ruling’s effects in Florida. For example, the state’s redistricting process will likely not change as much, in part because protections for districts crafted to help minority voters elect their preferred candidates are now written into the state Constitution as part of the 2010 “Fair Districts” amendments.

Still, voting-rights groups that have spent years fighting a slew of election changes approved by Scott and state lawmakers said their efforts would be undermined by the court’s decision. While citizens can still sue the state for voting discrimination under another section of the Voting Rights Act, those cases are more difficult to win and often don’t finish until after the changes have been used for at least one election cycle.

In addition to the preclearance for the 2011 changes, a Voting Rights Act lawsuit has been filed against the state’s efforts to purge suspected non-citizens from the voting rolls.

“This governor and this Legislature have been walking advertisements for why federal oversight is needed,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Simon’s group is looking at other ways of attacking the voter-purge initiative.

Meanwhile, voting-rights organizations said, Congress should pass a new version of the formula that would allow preclearance to take effect again.

“It should be disturbing to every Florida voter that the Supreme Court seems not to have noticed what happened in Florida over the last two years, where we have battled the Legislature’s partisan manipulation of our voting rights,” Deirdre Macnab, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, said in a statement. “Today’s decision undermines 40 years of fundamental protections against discriminatory voting laws and the League urges Congress to act quickly to restore the Voting Rights Act.”

By Brandon Larrabee, The News Service of Florida

Comments

6 Responses to “Supreme Court Strikes Major Part Of Voting Rights Act”

  1. David Huie Green on June 26th, 2013 1:08 pm

    REGARDING:
    “The only logical reason for a person or group to be against purging the voting rolls of non-citizens is because special interests require illegal aliens’ votes in order to pass legislation or elect public officials which otherwise would fail when left to the decision of lawful, hard-working Americans.”

    It may not be logical, but there is also the fear that the government would purge legitimate voters to achieve their goals — especially if they decide to purge legitimate voters just before an election and not giving them enough time to prove they are legitimate. Related to that is the irritation at the idea that the government can require us to prove we are who we are with them empowered to decide if our proof is valid. We wouldn’t enjoy the expense in money and time or the simply nuisance value of the thought that a bureaucrat could decide our futures for us.

    We know the government’s workers or politicians would never concentrate on suppressing political opponents, but some fear it.

    David for quelling fears

  2. David Huie Green on June 26th, 2013 1:01 pm

    REGARDING:
    “The neocons wish to govern and control (ride roughshod) all aspects of national and state function as well as individual rights and freedoms as specified in the US Constitution.”

    Are you sure you’re talking about neocons? My understanding is that they are primarily interested in national security and leaving everything out of the hands of federal government other than perhaps a basic safety net as envisioned by Reagan and Romney. Of course, they also seem hung up on defense of Israel but that would be because so many of them are Jewish and have kinfolks to worry about.

    David for freedom

  3. Bob Hudsun on June 26th, 2013 8:57 am

    Well this should go a long way toward putting forth the madatory I.D. for voting, seems over the past years there have be those who think they may vote as often as possible, well time to stop that, if it takes and state issued ID they so be it.

  4. Dennis HE Wiggins on June 26th, 2013 8:04 am

    Why all the fuss over purging illegals from voting? They’ll all be LEGAL by the next election, anyway! Gotta love that immigration “reform.” Go, Marco!!

  5. Jim on June 26th, 2013 7:15 am

    The only logical reason for a person or group to be against purging the voting rolls of non-citizens is because special interests require illegal aliens’ votes in order to pass legislation or elect public officials which otherwise would fail when left to the decision of lawful, hard-working Americans.

  6. 429SCJ on June 26th, 2013 7:15 am

    The federal government should focus on national defense objectives, foreign policy and collecting the revenue to fund it.

    The states should govern themselves internally and independently, but in alliance with national defense requirements.

    The neocons wish to govern and control (ride roughshod) all aspects of national and state function as well as individual rights and freedoms as specified in the US Constitution.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News