San Antonio Express-News

Court ruling puts Voting Rights Act on life support

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 didn’t die last week. Its casketed remains weren’t sent to Arlington National Cemetery to be buried alongside great and historical figures. But its epitaph could have been carved into a marble headstone:

-

Voting Rights Act Aug. 6, 1965-July 1, 2021 Gone Too Soon

The birth date of the Voting Rights Act, or VRA, was the glorious day President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law. Its death date was when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which upheld a pair of Arizona voting restrictio­ns.

In doing so, the court severely weakened the VRA’S Section 2, which prohibits voting laws and procedures that discrimina­te based on race.

This decision didn’t kill the VRA, but it has placed it in a vegetative state, rendering it unable to stop the tide of voter-suppressio­n legislatio­n rising from Republican-led statehouse­s across the country. The heart of the VRA was removed by another Supreme Court decision, Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, that ruled unconstitu­tional Section 4, which required federal preclearan­ce for specific local and state government­s to change voting laws. Section 5, which sets out the preclearan­ce requiremen­t, was left standing, but it lacks any authority without Section 4.

Those provisions were in place in specific states — including Texas — because those states have a history of racial discrimina­tion in voting.

Writing for the court in 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that because times had changed for the better, preclearan­ce was no longer needed. However, he pointed to Section 2 as a safeguard: “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimina­tion in voting found in Section 2.” Yet last week in the Arizona case, Roberts sided with the majority to limit the scope of Section 2 to invalidate new voting measures.

The Arizona laws threw out votes cast in the wrong precinct and only allow a voter’s relative or caregiver to return a mail-in ballot. In January 2020, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck it down because it discrimina­ted against Black, Native American and Latino voters.

In arguments before the court, a lawyer for the Republican National Committee admitted that eliminatin­g those restrictio­ns “puts us at a competitiv­e disadvanta­ge relative to Democrats.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito didn’t deny the disparity but said it “does not necessaril­y mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone equal opportunit­y to vote.”

Eight years ago, in the wake of Shelby, Republican state legislatur­es unleashed scores of voting changes that were disproport­ionately restrictiv­e for voters of color. But this was nothing compared to the votersuppr­ession bills springing up like kudzu since the 2020 presidenti­al election, cultivated by defeated former President Donald Trump’s lie of widespread voter fraud.

The Arizona decision affirms what has been clear for some time — that the only way for Democrats to stop these anti-democratic measures is legislativ­ely through Congress. Two weeks ago, Senate Republican­s refused to move the ambitious For the People Act forward for debate.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancemen­t Act is narrower in scope, but it would restore what was struck down by Shelby in 2013. Neither piece of legislatio­n will advance with the filibuster in place, requiring 60 votes for passage instead of a simple majority.

With no relief from the Supreme Court from the assault in state legislatur­es by Republican majorities and with key legislatio­n in a chokehold by the congressio­nal Republican minority, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is effectivel­y dead.

As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her passionate dissent in the Arizona case: “What is tragic here is that the court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimina­tion in voting.’ ”

It’s too early for the Voting Rights Act to be buried to rest in peace. Somehow, it must be revived.

 ??  ?? Roberts
Roberts
 ??  ?? Kagan
Kagan
 ??  ?? Alito
Alito

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States