The US Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, striking down a key part of a landmark Civil Rights-era law that protected voters from discrimination and has been called “one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom" by President Lyndon Johnson. By a vote of 5-4, the court ruled that Section 4, which used data from the 1960s and 1970s to provide a "coverage formula" for Section 5, could "no longer be used." Section 4 set out the formula to determine which states and regions discriminated against voters based on race or had low voter registration. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act says that those designated areas need to get pre-clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court before they make any changes to their voting laws. Most of the states subject to Section 5 are in the southern United States — including Alabama, which filed the case. The decision on Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. "Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically," the ruling, which can be found in its entirety here, read.
The ruling leaves the Voting Rights Act's Section 5 in place. However, Section 5 largely loses its significance without Section 4. As the SCOTUS blog explained, "Although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it." Roberts, who wrote the decision, said, "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions." Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent, said, "The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective. The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed." President Obama expressed his disappointment in the ruling Tuesday.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) also expressed concern over the court's decision. "The Supreme Court ruling takes the most powerful tool our nation has to defend minority voting rights out of commission," said Sherrilyn Ifill, the President of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "The Court has left millions of minority voters without the mechanism that has allowed them to stop voting discrimination before it occurs." Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi expressed her support for the SCOTUS decision: Other lawmakers and politicians came out strongly on both sides of the ruling: Our team has one shared goal: bringing The World to you. We go deep to bring you the human-centered international reporting you know you can trust. To do this work and do it well, we rely on a mix of grants and donations from our listeners. These charitable donations have an impact: The story you just read is accessible and free to all because thousands of listeners and readers contribute to our nonprofit newsroom. Become one of 1,000 donors to help us reach $100,000 before the end of the year. Donate today so we can keep on bringing you The World.
7.32pm BST Summary
Today's supreme court ruling on the 1965 Voting Rights Act will have huge implications for years to come. Here's a look back at the day's major developments. • The court struck down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in its 5-4 ruling in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. Section 4 concerns the formula for determining which states are covered under Section 5 of the law requiring "pre-clearance" for changes to voting laws. This renders Section 5 inoperative unless Congress comes up with a revised version of determining coverage. • The majority opinion, written by chief justice Roberts, finds that the formula for determining coverage is based on dated statistics from a much more discriminatory era. The minority opinion, written by justice Ginsburg, argues that discrimination in voting laws is still prevalent, and to the extent that old methods (poll tests, etc.) have been eliminated, it's because the law has worked. • Senate leaders have promised to "immediately" consider action on revising the formula. The prospects of moving such a piece of legislation through this Congress, however, are dim. • President Obama and attorney general Holder both released statements that they were "deeply disappointed" by today's ruling. • States are already on the move to put into effect laws that the Justice Department had blocked under the VRA. The court will be back in session tomorrow morning to release the remaining opinions from this term, including those on the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.
6.56pm BST
Here's a map of the jurisdictions - state, county, local - covered by the VRA. Or that were covered. Daily Intelligencer (@intelligencer)
6.38pm BST
So you know how Eric Holder warned that with Section 5 now inoperative, certain new Texas voting laws that had been held up could take effect immediately? The Texas attorney general says that they will, in fact, take effect immediately.
6.06pm BST
You can read Holder's statement here.
5.52pm BST
Holder: "I am deeply disappointed - deeply disappointed" in the judgment. He reiterates that this law was extended in 2006, by President Bush, with a "unanimous" vote in the senate and a "near-unanimous vote" in the House. He mentions a case from last year in which Latino voters were discriminated against (the Texas redistricting map.) The case's court ruling said there was "more evidence form discriminatory intent" in this case than they had "space for." Without review, Holder says, the discriminatory law "would have been implemented immediately." Updated at 6.05pm BST
5.43pm BST
Attorney general Eric Holder is giving his statement now.
5.26pm BST
Senator Chuck Schumer is not sugarcoating it: Mike O'Brien (@mpoindc)
5.17pm BST
The Guardian's Ed Pilkington gets the reaction from someone at the forefront of the challenge to the VRA:
5.09pm BST President Obama's statement
From the White House:
5.08pm BST
Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist and MSNBC personality, says that the supreme court "just canceled the dream" of Martin Luther King Jr. And congressman John Lewis, a leader of the civil rights movement, is similarly disappointed: Jeff Zeleny (@jeffzeleny)
4.53pm BST
The Guardian's Washington bureau chief, Dan Roberts, has been going through the ruling. He writes:
Updated at 6.34pm BST
4.50pm BST
Michael Waldman, president of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice - a leading research body on voting rights - is also calling on Congress to "upgrade" the VRA:
4.48pm BST
The Democratic National Committee already has a petition up that reads, "The Supreme Court has struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act. This is disappointing, but the fight is not over. Stand with Democrats who are fighting to protect the right to vote for every American." A DNC email from Donna Brazile has also been sent out, saying, "Stand with Democrats who are fighting Republican attacks on voting rights."
4.39pm BST
The attorney general will speak about the ruling in less than an hour. DOJ Civil Rights (@CivilRights)
4.15pm BST
Some reactions from legal commentators and others: Pete Williams, legal analyst for NBC News calls this "a huge defeat for the civil rights community on the most important civil rights law ever passed." NYU election law expert Rick Pildes, speaking to the Washington Post, has more mixed opinions than some of the "hyperbole" out there"
Senator Pat Leahy, chair of the Senate judiciary committee, is upset with the ruling and promises "immediate" action in a statement:
Updated at 4.28pm BST
4.02pm BST
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the minority's dissent (which she read from the bench), applies the argument that might have popped up in your head while read the majority's opinion: that perhaps conditions aren't the same anymore because the Voting Rights Act has worked. The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) She appeals to Congress' right to reauthorize the legislation (as it did most recently based in 2006) on its own judgment, based on current conditions, and lists a number of recent examples of where discrimination has taken place.
3.50pm BST
Section 5, the "preclearance" requirement for states and localities that want to change their voting laws, remains intact. But until a new formula for section 4 can be drafted in Congress, it is rendered ineffective. That's a big deal. HuffPost Media (@HuffPostMedia) Updated at 4.00pm BST
3.42pm BST
The court's opinion, as laid out in the syllabus of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, is that the court's justification for upholding the law in the '60s - that "the coverage formula [was] rational in both practice and theory" - no longer applicable, as conditions "have changed dramatically."
And so the majority considers two major parts composing the Section 4 formula - the use "tests and devices" for discrimination (cause) and lower voter turnouts among minorities (effect) - outdated.
Therefore, the majority says, if Congress is going to single out certain states, it would need to revisit the formula.
Updated at 7.16pm BST
3.31pm BST
This is Jim Newell in Washington. In a landmark decision, the US supreme court has struck down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in a five to four decision, along ideological lines. The Voting Rights Act is designed to protect the rights of minorities to vote, and Section 4 determines the formula for which states should be covered under the law. But Section 5, which many thought would be struck down, remains in force. That requires "pre-clearance" for certain states with a history of discrimination to change their voting laws. The court says Congress could revisit the formula. But it is not likely that this Congress would reach much of an agreement anytime soon. We'll have more news and analysis coming up. |