Slapping Civil Rights Champions in the Face

Slapping Civil Rights Champions in the Face

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude— The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” 

Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution

“(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth [below.]”

from SEC. 2. (52 U.S.C. 10301 Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended)

Look at the map on the right above. Those red areas were counties and states which were the bastions of continued Jim Crow voting discrimination well into the 1950s and 60s, notwithstanding the admonition of the Fifteenth Amendment quoted above. The Supreme Court back then ruled against school segregation (Brown vs Board of Education, 1954), with powerful racist undercurrents still defining voting and other civil rights, all struggling to maintain separation of the races and heavily focused (via poll taxes, strict voter ID requirements, grandfather provisions and general intimidation of would-be Black voters) on keeping candidates and voters lily white. People of all races died or were falsely accused of crimes or just plain beaten while attempting to right that wrong. Civil rights volunteers just disappeared.

In 1965, Congress decided to act. The Voting Rights Act (VRA), amended several times since then, was intended to put teeth into the lax enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment with a strong focus on those red jurisdictions above where voting discrimination was particularly rampant. Section 5 (enforced under Section 4(b) of the Act), named those jurisdictions, placing them under direct federal supervision over elections rules. Still, racism found its way into voting practices, a reality that Martin Luther King, Jr dedicated his life to change. But several of those named states (mostly in the South) resented not being able to restrict voting rights again. One Alabama county (Shelby), sensing a conservative change in the make-up of the Supreme Court 40 plus years later, thought it possible this panel just might find a way to neutralize or invalidate the statute, or at least release the named defendant states from federal election control. Surprise, Shelby Country sued the Department of Justice (naming Eric Holder, AG under Obama)… and won.

On June 25, 2013, the Court determined by a 5 to 4 vote that Section 4(b) of the VRA was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction would be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacted a new coverage formula, which, given the rising polarization of the nation, was unlikely.

Interestingly enough and giving false hope to civil rights activists, the Court did not negate Section 2 of the VRA quoted above, but the message, that the Court found election-related judicial review was not likely to amount to much, was loud and clear. Indeed, most of the states released from federal election supervision almost immediately set about passing new replacement voting restrictions, aimed at keeping Blacks and other minorities of color from having much in the way of voting power. The vestiges of people’s belief that perhaps that Section 2 would actually be enough to protect minority voting rights died, with great justification.

On April 29th, the Supreme Court decimated Section 2, a statutory provision that was designed to prevent racial discrimination in elections, by banning references to race in voting laws designed to eliminate racial bias. Huh? Once you knew that Justice Samual Alito was charged with writing the majority opinion, the result from this highly biased Associate Justice was obvious. As David G. Savage and Ana Ceballos, writing for the April 30th Los Angeles Times, summarize: “In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana vs. Callais, the court ruled that creating these majority-minority districts may amount to racial discrimination that violates the 14th Amendment.

“When weighing what the Voting Rights Act requires, ‘we start with the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the federal government or a state to discriminate on the basis of race,’ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court… Alito said states may draw election districts for partisan advantage but may not use race as a basis for redistricting… The ruling in a Louisiana case appears to clear the way for Republican-led states across the South to redraw their election maps and eliminate voting districts that favor Black or Latino candidates for Congress, state legislatures and county boards [noting that a majority of Black voters support Democrats].

“UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said, ‘It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,’ adding that the decision makes the Voting Rights Act a ‘much weaker, and potentially toothless law.’…Hasen said it’s unclear how the decision will affect the November election because in many states early voting has already started and primaries have already taken place… But the ruling’s long-term consequences for minority representation in Congress, state legislatures and local government are almost ‘certainly’ going to be felt in 2028, Hasen said.

”Republican leaders in states across the South have already signaled they intend to move quickly to redraw congressional maps in the wake of the ruling… Alabama Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall said the state will ‘act as quickly as possible’ to ensure its congressional maps ‘reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.’ Marshall called the decision a recognition of how much the South has changed since the civil rights era… ‘The court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,’ he said in a statement…

“The three liberals dissented. The consequences of the ruling ‘are likely to be far-reaching and grave,’ said Justice Elena Kagan, adding that it will allow ‘racial vote dilution in its most classic form.’… She said the decision means ‘a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic.” Simply put: Jim Crow has returned with a vengeance. A Black voter in Alabama under the proper application of Section of the Voting Rights Act will find his or her vote going forward to be meaningless.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the Supreme Court has added one more nail to the coffin where American democracy lies ready for a full burial.