The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections.
The justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.
The court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965.
But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington’s approval, in advance, for election changes.
Florida has five counties on the preclearance list: Hillsborough, Monroe, Collier, Hardee and Hendry. The state in 2011 challenged the preclearance regulations, arguing the 40-year-old formula was “arbitrary and irrational.”
“It will be better without the Department of Justice looking over our shoulder all the time,” Florida’s top elections official, Secretary of State Ken Detzner said Tuesday.
Detzner, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to oversee the state’s election apparatus, said it made no sense for five Florida counties to be subjected to decades-old voting rights data.
Detzner said the state spent as much as $750,000 on legal fees over the past two years, gaining pre-clearance for a series of controversial voting law changes that the Legislature approved and Scott signed in 2011.
Any person or group who thinks a Florida voting law discriminates against racial or language minorities can file a lawsuit in the courts, Detzner said.
Deirdre Macnab, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, said the ruling would mean “disastrous chaos for the state of Florida.”
“One would have to wonder if the majority in the Supreme Court decision had been paying attention to the state of Florida over the past few years,” Macnab said. “On the heels of one of our greatest embarrassments, eight-hour lines, four-day delays in counting votes ... now Florida citizens are left without protection from the clear pattern of partisan manipulation of our voting rights.”
The Supreme Court warned of problems with the voting rights law in a similar case heard in 2009. The justices averted a major constitutional ruling at that time, but Congress did nothing to address the issues the court raised.
In the ruling Tuesday, the court said, Congress’ “failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”
But the ruling continued: “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination” and said Congress “may draft another formula based on current conditions.”
The latest decision came in a challenge to the advance approval, or preclearance, requirement, which was brought by Shelby County, Ala., a Birmingham suburb.
The lawsuit acknowledged that the measure’s strong medicine was appropriate and necessary to counteract decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the vote for black Americans.
The justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.
The court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965.
But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington’s approval, in advance, for election changes.
Florida has five counties on the preclearance list: Hillsborough, Monroe, Collier, Hardee and Hendry. The state in 2011 challenged the preclearance regulations, arguing the 40-year-old formula was “arbitrary and irrational.”
“It will be better without the Department of Justice looking over our shoulder all the time,” Florida’s top elections official, Secretary of State Ken Detzner said Tuesday.
Detzner, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to oversee the state’s election apparatus, said it made no sense for five Florida counties to be subjected to decades-old voting rights data.
Detzner said the state spent as much as $750,000 on legal fees over the past two years, gaining pre-clearance for a series of controversial voting law changes that the Legislature approved and Scott signed in 2011.
Any person or group who thinks a Florida voting law discriminates against racial or language minorities can file a lawsuit in the courts, Detzner said.
Deirdre Macnab, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, said the ruling would mean “disastrous chaos for the state of Florida.”
“One would have to wonder if the majority in the Supreme Court decision had been paying attention to the state of Florida over the past few years,” Macnab said. “On the heels of one of our greatest embarrassments, eight-hour lines, four-day delays in counting votes ... now Florida citizens are left without protection from the clear pattern of partisan manipulation of our voting rights.”
The Supreme Court warned of problems with the voting rights law in a similar case heard in 2009. The justices averted a major constitutional ruling at that time, but Congress did nothing to address the issues the court raised.
In the ruling Tuesday, the court said, Congress’ “failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”
But the ruling continued: “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination” and said Congress “may draft another formula based on current conditions.”
The latest decision came in a challenge to the advance approval, or preclearance, requirement, which was brought by Shelby County, Ala., a Birmingham suburb.
The lawsuit acknowledged that the measure’s strong medicine was appropriate and necessary to counteract decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the vote for black Americans.