Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law

The decision focuses on Section 4 of the Act.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts writes that the decision “in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.”

Legal scholar Jeffrey Toobin tells CNN that the court has effectively said “times have changed so much that the formula [for deciding which states are more prone to discriminate] is invalid.”

And by striking Section 4, he said, “in practice, the other section of the law – Section 5 — is dormant.”

As the AP explains it, the Supreme Court has essentially decided that Section 5 of the act — the part that requires certain states with a history of discrimination to have changes to any voting procedures approved by the federal government — cannot be enforced until Congress “comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections.”

The case, known as Shelby County v. Holder, focused on Section 5 of the act, which was renewed by Congress in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The petitioner, Shelby County, Ala., argued that Section 5 of the VRA subjects them to a double standard and infringes on state sovereignty. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that Congress exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection and the Fifteenth Amendment covering voting rights and therefore violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the constitution – both of which deal with state’s rights.

Attorney General Eric Holder had argued that the restrictions, which cover nine southern states including Alabama and numerous counties in five other states, were necessary to keep them from returning to discriminatory practices.

Update at 11:27 a.m. ET. ‘A Setback To Our Democracy’:

In a statement, Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called today’s decision a “setback to our democracy and the voting rights of real Americans.”

Henderson added:

“We can’t allow discrimination at the ballot box and must prevent minorities from having their votes purged, packed, gerrymandered, and redistricted away. No one should be fooled by the Pollyannaish fantasy that voting discrimination no longer exists . As the Court acknowledged, voting discrimination still exists and Congress may draft another coverage formula. We urge Congress to act with urgency and on a bipartisan basis to protect voting rights for minorities.”

Update at 11:17 a.m. ET. Most Successful Provision:

NPR’s Nina Totenberg tells Morning Edition that Section 5 of the VRA is perhaps its most successful provision. It stated that areas that discriminated against minorities must have any changes to voting procedures approved by the federal government before they go into effect.

The areas covered by that provision were determined by a “coverage formula” that was last updated in 1972.

Nina says the majority said some states were “being forced to endure current burdens based on old conditions.”

Justice Roberts pointed to Mississippi: In 1965, only 7 percent of African Americans voted. In 2004, 76 percent of African Americans voted. He said that success meant that the formulas were no longer valid.

Update at 10:58 a.m. ET. Who Should Decide?:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.

Essentially, Ginsburg argued that under the Fifteenth Amendment, it was Congress’ job — not the Court’s — to decide when Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer justifiable.

“With overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, [Section 5] should continue in force, unabated,” Ginsburg writes. “First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against back­ sliding. Those assessments were well within Congress’ province to make and should elicit this Court’s unstinting approbation.”

Update at 10:43 a.m. ET. Outdated Data:

On Morning Edition, NPR’s Carrie Johnson explains that the court focused in on the formula that determines which states and districts have a history of discrimination.

That formula, the court said, was based on “outdated data” from the 1960s and 1970s, so Congress needs to rework it.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a concurring opinion, except, he said, he would have also done away with Section 5.

He quotes the majority opinion saying “our nation has changed,” and the conditions that justified Section 5 of the act “no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.” He adds:

“By leaving the inevitable conclusion unstated, the Court needlessly prolongs the demise of that provision. For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion, I would find [Section 5] unconstitutional.”