Key section of Voting Rights Act struck down

Justices rule formula for fed preclearance is unconstitutional

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a centerpiece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in a marked victory for Southern states and conservatives that also poses a steep challenge for Congress.

In one of the term's most highly anticipated rulings, the court ruled, 5-4, that part of the 1965 law must be updated to account for how times have changed since Congress first wrote the groundbreaking voting rights legislation.

The ruling could free nine states, as well as certain political jurisdictions in other states, from the necessity of getting prior Justice Department approval for changes that might have an impact on local elections.

"There is no denying that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the conservative majority.

The decision in the case brought by Shelby County, Ala., technically leaves in place the so-called preclearance requirements under the law. They require prior Justice Department approval, under Section 5, of everything from buying new voting machines and closing polling places to requiring photo identification and shifting district boundaries.

Practically speaking, though, the decision also effectively pulls the plug on preclearance for the time being, by striking down a related section that sets the formula for determining which political jurisdictions must meet the preclearance requirements. The justices said this part of the law, known as Section 4, was unconstitutional.

"Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices," Roberts wrote, noting that "voter registration and turnout data in the covered states have risen dramatically in the years since."

In 1965, for instance, only 27 percent of African-American adults in Georgia were registered to vote, compared with 62 percent of white adults. By 2004, African-American voter registration in Georgia had jumped to 64 percent, exceeding white registration. Other Southern states have shown similar trends.

The court's decision leaves up to Congress the job of updating the preclearance formula, a tough political task that some lawmakers concede may be impossible. Until the formula is updated, however, preclearance itself is up in the air.

Almost immediately after the decision, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott declared that his state would put into place a controversial voter-identification law without Justice Department approval.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Justice Department "will continue to carefully monitor" political jurisdictions for voting rights impediments and "will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action" when necessary.

Voting Rights Act advocates say that requiring prior Justice Department approval for electoral changes is more effective than chasing after individual violations after the fact.

Nine states are covered in their entirety by the preclearance requirements: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Selected jurisdictions in an additional seven states — California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota — also are covered.


Reader Reaction
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Rules. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or fill out this form. New comments are only accepted for two weeks from the date of publication.
COUPON OF THE WEEK