The Supreme Court on Friday said it would decide the constitutionality of a signature portion of the Voting Rights Act.
The justices three years ago expressed skepticism about the continued need for Section 5 of the historic act, which requires states and localities with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South, to get federal approval of any changes in their voting laws.
It is the second important case involving race that the court has accepted this term. Last month, the justices heard a challenge to the University of Texas’s admissions policy that could redefine or eliminate the use of affirmative action in higher education.
The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders.
But critics say that the method for selecting the places requiring special supervision — nine states and certain parts of seven others — is outdated and that there is no need for imposing greater requirements for some areas of the country.
The court will be reviewing a decision last spring by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to uphold Section 5.
First passed in 1965, the act was most recently extended in 2006 with lopsided votes in both houses of Congress and signed with fanfare by President George W. Bush.
U.S. Circuit Judge David S. Tatel wrote that the judicial branch had no reason to second-guess Congress’s decision to reauthorize the law.
“Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered,” Tatel wrote. He said it was fulfilling its obligation to ensure “that the right to vote — surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution — is not abridged on account of race.
“In this context, we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the people’s elected representatives.”
The final word will now come from the justices.
Conservative legal activists and Republican attorneys general from some of the covered states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — have launched challenges to the law.
They are encouraged by a 2009 Supreme Court decision that, as Tatel acknowledged in his opinion, raised substantial questions about Section 5’s continued constitutionality.
“Things have changed in the South,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in an opinion that sidestepped the constitutional question. “Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”
Tatel said the 2009 decision required judges to examine two questions: whether the burdens imposed by the act were justified by “current needs,” and whether the discrimination “evil” Section 5 was meant to eliminate is still concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for “pre-clearance” by federal authorities.
Tatel, appointed by President Bill Clinton, joined with Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a Bush appointee, to say that Congress had met those standards.
Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, disagreed. Williams noted that Congress avoided a critical look at current conditions when it reauthorized the law in 2006 and based its decision on which jurisdictions are covered by using decades-old information.
The Obama administration aggressively used Section 5 during this year’s election season to challenge restrictions on voting passed by Republican-led legislatures. The states said the changes were meant to combat voter impersonation fraud or make Election Day easier on election officials.
Courts generally backed the administration. Federal judges blocked new voter-ID laws in South Carolina and Texas for the election and forced officials in Florida to ease planned restrictions on early voting, which has become an important tool for Democrats in increasing African American turnout.
The case the court will consider comes from Shelby County, which is in the heart of Alabama near Birmingham.
It is Shelby County v. Holder .
The justices three years ago expressed skepticism about the continued need for Section 5 of the historic act, which requires states and localities with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South, to get federal approval of any changes in their voting laws.
It is the second important case involving race that the court has accepted this term. Last month, the justices heard a challenge to the University of Texas’s admissions policy that could redefine or eliminate the use of affirmative action in higher education.
The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders.
But critics say that the method for selecting the places requiring special supervision — nine states and certain parts of seven others — is outdated and that there is no need for imposing greater requirements for some areas of the country.
The court will be reviewing a decision last spring by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to uphold Section 5.
First passed in 1965, the act was most recently extended in 2006 with lopsided votes in both houses of Congress and signed with fanfare by President George W. Bush.
U.S. Circuit Judge David S. Tatel wrote that the judicial branch had no reason to second-guess Congress’s decision to reauthorize the law.
“Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered,” Tatel wrote. He said it was fulfilling its obligation to ensure “that the right to vote — surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution — is not abridged on account of race.
“In this context, we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the people’s elected representatives.”
The final word will now come from the justices.
Conservative legal activists and Republican attorneys general from some of the covered states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — have launched challenges to the law.
They are encouraged by a 2009 Supreme Court decision that, as Tatel acknowledged in his opinion, raised substantial questions about Section 5’s continued constitutionality.
“Things have changed in the South,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in an opinion that sidestepped the constitutional question. “Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”
Tatel said the 2009 decision required judges to examine two questions: whether the burdens imposed by the act were justified by “current needs,” and whether the discrimination “evil” Section 5 was meant to eliminate is still concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for “pre-clearance” by federal authorities.
Tatel, appointed by President Bill Clinton, joined with Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a Bush appointee, to say that Congress had met those standards.
Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, disagreed. Williams noted that Congress avoided a critical look at current conditions when it reauthorized the law in 2006 and based its decision on which jurisdictions are covered by using decades-old information.
The Obama administration aggressively used Section 5 during this year’s election season to challenge restrictions on voting passed by Republican-led legislatures. The states said the changes were meant to combat voter impersonation fraud or make Election Day easier on election officials.
Courts generally backed the administration. Federal judges blocked new voter-ID laws in South Carolina and Texas for the election and forced officials in Florida to ease planned restrictions on early voting, which has become an important tool for Democrats in increasing African American turnout.
The case the court will consider comes from Shelby County, which is in the heart of Alabama near Birmingham.
It is Shelby County v. Holder .