[h=5]Robert Barnes, Washington Post[/h]Posted: Wednesday, June 26, 2013, 3:01 AM
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a crucial component of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, ruling that Congress has not taken into account the nation's racial progress when singling out certain states for federal oversight.The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the other conservative members of the court in the majority.
The court did not strike down the law itself or the provision that calls for special scrutiny of states with a history of discrimination. But it said Congress must come up with a new formula based on current data to determine which states should be subject to the requirements.
Proponents of the law, which protects minority voting rights, called the ruling a death knell. It will be almost impossible for a Congress bitterly divided along partisan lines to come up with such an agreement, they said.
There could be immediate consequences from the court's ruling. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said his state would move forward with a voter-ID law that had been stopped by a panel of federal judges and would carry out redistricting changes that had been mired in court battles.In Pennsylvania, a Philadelphia elections lawyer, Kevin Greenberg, said the decision would have no direct impact on the commonwealth, since it was not one of the states or other jurisdictions requiring Justice Department review of any changes in election law or procedures.
But he said the ruling was another indication of the court's deference to state election laws - one of the reasons that opponents of Pennsylvania's voter-ID law chose last year to fight it in state courts instead of federal court.
The act covers Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, as well as Alaska, Arizona, and parts of seven other states. It requires them to receive "preclearance" from the U.S. attorney general or federal judges before making any changes to election or voting laws.
Roberts said the court had warned Congress four years ago that its decision to continue using a formula based on "40-year-old facts" would lead to serious constitutional questions.
"Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so," Roberts wrote in Shelby County (Ala.) v. Holder. "Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [the formula] unconstitutional."
He added, "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."
He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
A sign of racial progress has been the election of the nation's first African American president, who said Tuesday he was "deeply disappointed" in the decision.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said his department would "continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized the liberals' disagreement with the decision by reading her dissent from the bench. "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet," she wrote.
She said the majority not only misread the lessons of the nation's racial progress, but also inserted itself into a decision that the Constitution's Civil War amendments specifically leave for Congress.
"When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress' power to act is at its height," Ginsburg wrote in her dissent.
She noted that the 2006 extension of the Voting Rights Act, and the continued use of the formula in Section 4, was approved unanimously in the Senate and signed by President George W. Bush. "What has become of the court's usual restraint?" she asked from the bench.
She was joined in dissent by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
Roberts, too, was ready with history lessons. He noted that in 1965, white voter registration in Mississippi was nearly 70 percent and black registration 6.7 percent. By 2004, a greater percentage of blacks than whites were registered to vote in the state, and that was true in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.
Ginsburg said the longtime formula Congress decided to continue using still identified the areas most in need of federal oversight. Between 1982 and 2006, she said, the Justice Department blocked more than 700 voting changes on the grounds that they would be discriminatory.
Roberts noted that the decision "in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting" found in another part of the Voting Rights Act. And he said, "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."
But there appeared to be little bipartisan appetite for that on Capitol Hill.
On Wednesday, the court's term will end with rulings expected on two gay-marriage cases.
Inquirer staff writer Bob Warner contributed to this article.
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a crucial component of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, ruling that Congress has not taken into account the nation's racial progress when singling out certain states for federal oversight.The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the other conservative members of the court in the majority.
The court did not strike down the law itself or the provision that calls for special scrutiny of states with a history of discrimination. But it said Congress must come up with a new formula based on current data to determine which states should be subject to the requirements.
Proponents of the law, which protects minority voting rights, called the ruling a death knell. It will be almost impossible for a Congress bitterly divided along partisan lines to come up with such an agreement, they said.
There could be immediate consequences from the court's ruling. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said his state would move forward with a voter-ID law that had been stopped by a panel of federal judges and would carry out redistricting changes that had been mired in court battles.In Pennsylvania, a Philadelphia elections lawyer, Kevin Greenberg, said the decision would have no direct impact on the commonwealth, since it was not one of the states or other jurisdictions requiring Justice Department review of any changes in election law or procedures.
But he said the ruling was another indication of the court's deference to state election laws - one of the reasons that opponents of Pennsylvania's voter-ID law chose last year to fight it in state courts instead of federal court.
The act covers Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, as well as Alaska, Arizona, and parts of seven other states. It requires them to receive "preclearance" from the U.S. attorney general or federal judges before making any changes to election or voting laws.
Roberts said the court had warned Congress four years ago that its decision to continue using a formula based on "40-year-old facts" would lead to serious constitutional questions.
"Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so," Roberts wrote in Shelby County (Ala.) v. Holder. "Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [the formula] unconstitutional."
He added, "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."
He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
A sign of racial progress has been the election of the nation's first African American president, who said Tuesday he was "deeply disappointed" in the decision.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said his department would "continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized the liberals' disagreement with the decision by reading her dissent from the bench. "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet," she wrote.
She said the majority not only misread the lessons of the nation's racial progress, but also inserted itself into a decision that the Constitution's Civil War amendments specifically leave for Congress.
"When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress' power to act is at its height," Ginsburg wrote in her dissent.
She noted that the 2006 extension of the Voting Rights Act, and the continued use of the formula in Section 4, was approved unanimously in the Senate and signed by President George W. Bush. "What has become of the court's usual restraint?" she asked from the bench.
She was joined in dissent by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
Roberts, too, was ready with history lessons. He noted that in 1965, white voter registration in Mississippi was nearly 70 percent and black registration 6.7 percent. By 2004, a greater percentage of blacks than whites were registered to vote in the state, and that was true in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.
Ginsburg said the longtime formula Congress decided to continue using still identified the areas most in need of federal oversight. Between 1982 and 2006, she said, the Justice Department blocked more than 700 voting changes on the grounds that they would be discriminatory.
Roberts noted that the decision "in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting" found in another part of the Voting Rights Act. And he said, "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."
But there appeared to be little bipartisan appetite for that on Capitol Hill.
On Wednesday, the court's term will end with rulings expected on two gay-marriage cases.
Inquirer staff writer Bob Warner contributed to this article.