Quantcast

November 28, 2014


Supreme Court – Section 4 Of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional–Is Democracy Dead?

imageThe Supreme Court has just dealt a blow to the American Democracy. It has just ruled on Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and said that the section is unconstitutional. It left it to Congress to fix (come up with a new formula for preclearance). This was a 5 to 4 decision along the ideological lines of the court. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Chief Justice John G. Roberts in the decision. Chief Justice Roberts Jr. wrote the majority decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, and was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Ginsberg read her dissent as Samuel Alito, showing lack of decorum, rolled his eyes and displayed other disrespectful antics.

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act defines the coverage formula by which preclearance of any covered jurisdiction is applied. These jurisdictions are required to get approval from the Justice Department to effect any changes that would affect voting.

The majority opinion used included the following chart to justify ‘nullifying’ Section 4. The opinion states:

The 2004 figures come from the Census Bureau. Census Bureau data from the most recent election indicate that African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by §5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent. See Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States (Table 4b). The preclearance statistics are also illuminating. In the first decade after enactment of §5, the Attorney General objected to 14.2 percent of proposed voting changes. H. R Rep. No. 109–478, at 22. In the last decade before reenactment, the Attorney General objected to a mere 0.16 percent. S. Rep. No.109–295, at 13. 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.

clip_image002

What the majority does not understand is that the success of the formula is what makes that increased voter participation possible. Removal of the formula even if temporary will have disastrous effects in presenting representation that does not reflect the desires of the population.

Texas is a great example that illustrates why these laws are needed. Texas finds the most ingenious ways to get around the law to suppress its voters. A state that is majority minority that votes exclusively for Republicans in statewide races is probative. Texas makes it difficult for voter registrars to get qualified, it adjust voting hours based on empirical demographic considerations that affect minorities, and draws districts based on turnout models to get around many laws. Nullification of Section 4 simply adds another tool to that toolbox. The Texas scenario is likely be replicated throughout many states.

While the Supreme Court has pretty much left the ball in the hands of Congress, it is unlikely that Congress will act for two specific reasons. Firstly, a Republican House that is in existence not by popular vote but by gerrymandering (Democrats got over one million more votes than Republicans in Congress even as they have a large majority), is in no hurry to stop the status quo. Secondly, the current Republican Party is unable to win the presidency without voter suppression. Republicans likely see this ruling as a gift.



LIKE My Facebook PageVisit My Blog: EgbertoWillies.com

Comments

comments

->
About Egberto Willies

Egberto Willies is a radio show host, author, blogger, political activist, DailyKOS Featured Writer, Vice President of Coffee Party USA, Executive Committee member of Move to Amend, 2nd Annual CNN iReport Spirit Award Honoree, HuffPost Live Contributor, self-employed software developer, & web designer. Egberto wrote the book ‘As I See It:Class Warfare The Only Resort To Right Wing Doom’ based on his belief that the mainstream media is derelict in its duty to relate what really ails the middle class and the complicity of the Right Wing in its demise. Bio: http://egbertowillies.com/bio/ Linked In: http://linkd.in/TOiHUS. Google

Trackbacks

  1. […] Supreme Court ruled today that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Many claim that the America of today is not the America of 1964. While that is true, many […]

  2. […] Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Chief Justice Roberts displayed a chart that showed the success of the VRA and used that success to give an ill-advised reason for gutting […]

  3. […] taken several steps backward. The Supreme Court has started the rebirth of Jim Crow laws when it gutted the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Immediately after that ruling Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott […]

  4. […] taken several steps backward. The Supreme Court has started the rebirth of Jim Crow laws when it gutted the Voting Rights Act […]

  5. […] effects of the Voting Rights Act ruling was almost immediate. Texas attorney general Greg Abbott’s response was via […]

  6. […] is true that the Supreme Court has been complicit in turning back the clock by ruling that Section 4 of the Voter Rights Act is unconstitutional.  Even Bill Maher, a comedian, correctly states that twice in three years Supreme Court Chief […]