By: Eleni Christofides This February marks the forty-second year that Black History Month has been recognized at a national level in the United States. In honor of the history, successes, and continuing fight for civil rights, this essay will examine a recent Supreme Court case: Shelby County v. Holder from 2013. The ruling in this case makes it especially important to remember that the goals and vision of the Civil Rights Movement did not end in the 1960s, and must continue to be supported legally if progress is to be maintained and expanded.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, a critical piece of civil rights legislation, includes sections that aim to eliminate forms of discrimination which constitute voter suppression and disenfranchisement of minority groups in state elections. Section 4(b) of the Act defines the districts that can fall under the purview of the Act, and the Section 5 states that eligible districts are not allowed to change election laws without gaining authorization from the federal government, to ensure that the change does not have a discriminatory effect (2). Shelby County in Alabama, the petitioner in the case, filed a suit in the district court that argued Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Act were unconstitutional because they imposed a permanent restriction on the county. The district court and D.C. Circuit Court upheld the constitutionality of the statutes and Congress's rights to renew them (3). In the further appeal that would be Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court would answer the following question: does the Voting Rights Act of 1965 continue to pass the standard of constitutionality, and does Congress have the authority under the 14th and 15th Amendments to renew Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act? (3). The Court ruled partially in reverse, deciding that no, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional due to its unnecessary discriminate treatment of certain states and counties. Congress thus exceeds its powers granted by the 14th and 15th Amendments by renewing the statutes (2). The Court reasoned that states retain sovereignty under the Constitution and that sovereignty must be equal among all states; the Voting Rights Act violates that principle because it makes states apply for changes to election law, and thus the requirement will inherently affect certain states more than others. Thus it creates substantive standard differences between states for their burden of proof if sued, and slows their process of enacting election laws. Most importantly, the Court argued, the Act is no longer necessary because minority voting turnout in the targeted states has improved so that disparities no longer exist. Since the statute's enforcement should be justified by "current needs," and those needs no longer exist, the statute no longer meets the necessary criteria to be used and creates an undue burden for those eligible states (2). The Courts says Congress used old data in an attempt to justify the law, and this discriminates against states' abilities to regulate their own election laws. Unfortunately, the majority decision in this case fails to recognize the importance of the law for retention of progress. If indeed these voting rates have improved in targeted states, then unless it can be proven that there is another causal factor, it is likely that the Voting Rights Act had a significant role in this change. If that is the case, it makes the legislation far more important to keep, in order to prevent the loss of progress, and would constitute a justifiable burden for a legitimate congressional interest. The Roberts Court majority in this case conveniently focuses only on “current needs,” and seems to ignore the fact that minority voter suppression is a well-documented, continuing problem, even if it becomes less blatant than it has been in the past. Indeed, this ruling has led to aggressive laws that removed early voting and same-day registration policies—Golden Week in Ohio, for example—and purged voter registration rolls (1). By effectively making it more difficult to prove discrimination, this decision implies a declining dedication to protect the civil rights that were fought for so arduously. Civil rights legislation needs to remain on the books to provide constant protection, but its value is also symbolic: it acknowledges that the struggle is not over, that there are improvements to be made, and that the federal government is a willing partner in that fight. That, in particular, is what makes the attitude in Shelby so troubling. References: 1. Fuller, Jaime. “How has voting changed since Shelby County v. Holder?” July 7, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/07/how-has-voting-changed-since-shelby-county-v-holder/?utm_term=.bba1b72510b7 2. "Shelby County v. Holder." Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/#annotation 3. "Shelby County v. Holder." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |