90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
Here and Now with Robin Young
Public radio's live
midday news program
With sponsorship from
Mathworks - Accelerating the pace of engineering and science
Accelerating the pace
of engineering and science
Tuesday, June 25, 2013

High Court Voids Key Part Of Voting Rights Act

People wait in line outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, to listen to oral arguments in the Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder voting rights case. (Evan Vucci/AP)

People wait in line outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, to listen to oral arguments in the Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder voting rights case. (Evan Vucci/AP)

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections.

The justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.

The court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington’s approval, in advance, for election changes.

Chief Justice John Roberts said for the conservative majority that Congress “may draft another formula based on current conditions.”

The decision comes five months after President Barack Obama, the nation’s first black chief executive, started his second term in the White House, re-elected by a diverse coalition of voters.

The high court is in the midst of a broad re-examination of the ongoing necessity of laws and programs aimed at giving racial minorities access to major areas of American life from which they once were systematically excluded. The justices issued a modest ruling Monday that preserved affirmative action in higher education and will take on cases dealing with anti-discrimination sections of a federal housing law and another affirmative action case from Michigan next term.

The court warned of problems with the voting rights law in a similar case heard in 2009. The justices averted a major constitutional ruling at that time, but Congress did nothing to address the issues the court raised. The law’s opponents, sensing its vulnerability, filed several new lawsuits.

The latest decision came in a challenge to the advance approval, or preclearance, requirement, which was brought by Shelby County, Ala., a Birmingham suburb.

The lawsuit acknowledged that the measure’s strong medicine was appropriate and necessary to counteract decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the vote for black Americans.

But it asked whether there was any end in sight for a provision that intrudes on states’ rights to conduct elections, an issue the court’s conservative justices also explored at the argument in February. It was considered an emergency response when first enacted in 1965.

The county noted that the 25-year extension approved in 2006 would keep some places under Washington’s oversight until 2031 and seemed not to account for changes that include the elimination of racial disparity in voter registration and turnout or the existence of allegations of race-based discrimination in voting in areas of the country that are not subject to the provision.

The Obama administration and civil rights groups said there is a continuing need for it and pointed to the Justice Department’s efforts to block voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas last year, as well as a redistricting plan in Texas that a federal court found discriminated against the state’s large and growing Hispanic population.

Advance approval was put into the law to give federal officials a potent tool to defeat persistent efforts to keep blacks from voting.

The provision was a huge success because it shifted the legal burden and required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate. Congress periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent extension was overwhelmingly approved by a Republican-led Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.

The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.

Towns in New Hampshire that had been covered by the law were freed from the advance approval requirement in March. Supporters of the provision pointed to the ability to bail out of the prior approval provision to argue that the law was flexible enough to accommodate change and that the court should leave the Voting Rights Act intact.

On Monday, the Justice Department announced an agreement that would allow Hanover County, Va., to bail out.


Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Beverly Mire

    Are race relations in this country still so bad we need a voting rights act?  Do I really have to worry that my right to vote can be affected by legal mumbo-jumbo?  Excuse me, but I don’t see what’s so complicated.  I’m over 18. I can vote. Period. And if someone tries to take that vote away for any reason they should be arrested.  The end.

    • J__o__h__n

      It is obviously more complicated than that.  It deals with things like districting.  

  • J__o__h__n

    When the conservatives went after affirmative action, they said that it had to be narrowly tailored to places where specific discrimination occured in the past.  For voter rights, they think that all areas should have the same standard without heightened scrutinu for where there was a history of voter discrimination.  Another conservative activist ruling. 

  • Heteromeles

    Here’s a dead skunk for your crappy coverage of the Supreme Court’s rulings today.   I’d give it approximately -1 stars out of 5.

    While I appreciate the 5 seconds you spent on that Florida environmental case,  mostly because it alerted me that it came out, this will have by far the biggest effect on everyone in the US, and you totally biffed that coverage.  Shame on you.

    As Justice Kagan noted in the dissent, this ruling “threatens to subject a vast array of land-use
    regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the
    country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so
    unwise an adventure.”

    In more prosaic terms, it means that cities can no longer acquire environmentally sensitive lands without paying the entire purported value of whatever the land owner wanted to do with that land.  If someone owns a wetland parcel, for example, a city may want to acquire that parcel to  for groundwater recharge for the city’s wells. Now it appears that the landowner can claim he’s planning on putting a high-end hotel on the site, and that nonsense will determine how much the city has to pay for that land. 

    If you can’t relate to that, realize that now, new developments will no longer have neighborhood parks, unless the city can afford to pay for not having houses where the park would be.

    I do hope you take some time from your breathless coverage to look at the rulings that affect everyone in the US, and not just the dramatic stories.

    • J__o__h__n

      There had to be time for the obnoxious tennis guy to hawk his book.  

      • Heteromeles

         Oh yeah, I forgot.  You’re right, of course.

Robin and Jeremy

Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson host Here & Now, a live two-hour production of NPR and WBUR Boston.

September 12 8 Comments

Senator: Arab Countries ‘Need To Step To The Plate’ In Fight Against ISIS

Mark Begich (D-AK) is one of the few members of Congress speaking out against a key part of President Obama's plan for fighting the Islamic State.

September 12 Comment

Ecuadorian Drilling Damage Inspires Documentary

An American and an Ecuadorian are inspired to help Ecuador heal from decades of drilling and oil spills.

September 11 9 Comments

Doctor: 9/11 Responders’ Illnesses Becoming Worse

A World Trade Center Health Program medical provider says chronic illnesses affecting first responders are lingering and becoming worse.

September 11 Comment

Dennis Lehane Takes ‘The Drop’ From Screen To Page

Author Dennis Lehane discusses adapting a screenplay into a novel.