On Friday, Nov. 9 the Supreme Court agreed to review Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a key piece of Civil Rights-era legislation that requires the U.S. Department of Justice to approve any changes to the election rules in jurisdictions with a history of segregation. Due to increasingly widespread attempts to suppress the votes of poor and minority citizens through voter ID laws and convoluted redistricting schemes, Section 5 is not only still necessary but should also be expanded beyond the mostly southern states it currently applies to.
The Voting Rights Act’s challengers from Shelby County, Ala., claim the law is an overstep of federal authority, imposing targeted regulations that are prejudiced against once-segregated Southern states. Edward Blum, director of the Project for Fair Representation, a group backing the challenge, told U.S. News that “the America that elected and reelected Barack Obama as its first African American president is far different than when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965.” For Blum and others attacking the act, such electoral protections are both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
But we do not live in a post-racial society. In the lead-up to this election, Republican state legislatures in Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin attempted to muscle through strict voter photo ID laws, which would disproportionately disqualify minority voters.
While none of these voter ID laws went into effect before the election, some will become law in the coming months. Particularly in purple states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, these laws could significantly impact Democratic turnout. In the last election, 93 percent of Blacks voted for President Obama for a second term, as did 71 percent of Hispanics.
On the question of constitutionality, if the federal government has any role to play, it is to protect every citizen’s constitutional right to vote. Equal ballot access is fundamental to any functioning democracy. In fact, the Voting Rights Act as it stands probably does not go far enough. Both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania do not fall in Section 5’s “historically prejudiced” category, yet both are attempting to enact voting rules that are just that: prejudiced.
While the courts have no powers to extend the Voting Rights Act, Congress does. Congress ought to look at revamping the landmark 1965 legislation to address contemporary vote suppression strategies across all 50 states. To preempt any attempt at minimizing the impact of poor, minority, or immigrant votes, Congress should give the Department of Justice the right to approve any attempts to change election laws in any state as such changes often bode of racism or prejudice.
