Mark Braboy
Blue & White Flash/Staff Writer
On the morning of Tuesday, June 25th, the Section 4 of Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was declared invalid and unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the current formula is outdated and the rules have outlived their usefulness. As a result, nine southern states, including Mississippi, are now free to change their voting laws without government approval.
According the transcript from the Shelby County vs. Holder case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts stated, “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
Bennie Thompson, 2nd District Congressman of Mississippi (D), in a statement said, “Today’s Supreme Court decision will make it harder for many Americans to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote. The decision to invalidate Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act guts the most critical portion of the most important civil rights legislation of our time. The Voting Rights Act has been used for nearly 50 years to protect the American right to vote. Conditions and patterns of racial discrimination that were present decades ago persist in communities and states around the country today.”
Section 4 is the central component to the VRA which consists of a formula that is based on voting patterns to identify areas where racial discrimination in voting is prevalent; along with other provisions which guarantees citizens of all ethnicities and education levels the right to vote and register to vote and will not be discriminated against.
Section 5, another part of the VRA which works in conjunction with Section 4, is still intact, but the use of it has been diminished as a result the Supreme Court’s decision. Section 5 requires nine states (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, and Alaska) along with the counties of seven others to submit any attempted change made to their voting laws for them to be approved or denied by the federal government.
“The decision means that when states and communities with a history of racial and language discrimination make any policy decisions that impact voting the Department of Justice will no longer evaluate (or clear the policy as having a non-discriminatory impact). Instead, the policy will go directly into enforcement and voters can sue after they are discriminated. What this means is that the burden of proof will now shift from the state or local government to prove the proposed policy is not discriminatory to the voters. Now, the voters must demonstrate that the enacted policy is discriminatory.” said Michelle Deardorff, professor and chair of the Department of Political Science.
President Barack Obama in a statement said that he was deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision.
“For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.”
Many consider the Supreme Court’s decision to be baffling since Congress, in 2006 overwhelmingly voted to renew the Voter Registration Act for another 25 years.
Thompson’s statement also reads “The protection that Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act provided have not only been necessary, but effective. In Mississippi, where 38% of the population is African-American – higher than any other state – we have seen African-Americans take advantage of the opportunity to serve in elected offices at all levels. We have seen increases in voter registration and turnout – all made possible by the VRA. It appears now that the court has done away with Section 4 only because it was effective. While Section 5 remains intact, it is now useless unless Congress enacts a new method for determining which jurisdictions should receive more scrutiny. There are still forces at work that would like to disenfranchise African-Americans and other groups of voters. We have seen evidence of this with the latest efforts to require voter ID in states around the country. Relatedly, Congress has not been silent on this issue. House Democrats and Republicans alike have overwhelmingly and repeatedly voted in favor of reauthorizing this law. Most recently, in 2006, such a reauthorization passed the House by a vote of 390-33. Now, the Supreme Court has rendered the American people vulnerable to discrimination. Today’s ruling will undo many of the gains of the last 50 years. “
Despite the outrage from the NAACP, various Latino groups, Liberals, and the general public at large, some Conservatives believe that Section 5 is unfair punishment towards the South and removing Section 4 of the VRA is a step in the right direction.
U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R) said in a statement, “We are a nation that demands fairness and accountability. Is there a formula from the 1970s that helps us find that today? I don’t believe so. We should strive to ensure that all Americans have access to opportunity and equal protection under the law. But punishing six southern states because of past failures does not help us in the present and certainly does not help find our path to the future. All states should be treated equally, and today’s decision provides for that opportunity.”
Some states have already begun to take action. Since the Supreme Court has made their decision on Section 4, Mississippi Secretary of State, Delbert Hosemann plans on implementing the controversial Voter ID laws 2014 in Mississippi. Other states such as Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, and Virginia have announced plans to do so as well.
Some Jackson State students were outraged by the diminishment of the Voting Rights Act.
Nicole Williams, a junior theater major from Jackson, Miss said “I think the government does not have real laws. All of the laws are biased because if they can set them 30 or 40 years later, then take them away, they’re purposeless. But as far as taking way the privileges of voting rights, what did they fight for? It’s going to be hard to fight back because the mentality is not the same as how it was in the 60s, especially in Black America.”
Micky Nickson, a senior political science/theater major from Memphis, Tenn. said, “I find it to be ridiculous, mainly because our right to vote as a race was not an inalienable right. It was brought to us because our ancestors actually had to fight for it. So for [the Supreme Court] to attempt to take it away, it puts all of the fighting that our ancestors have suffered and died for in vain. That gives us as Americans a reason to challenge to government.
Sheneka Bankston, a graduate student of sociology from Jackson, Miss said “In my opinion, Section 4 of the voting rights act of 1965 infringes on the rights and privileges of minority voters based on their education and level of the English language with testing mainly in Southern states. The equality and opportunities of voters are challenged where the lack of education and knowledge of the voting process is examined for equal rights and privileges which date back to the Jim Crow Laws on a social, economical and political arena.”
She adds “It is also shocking as a minority voter to research that the Supreme Court Justice who represent the state of Mississippi voted in favor of a Bill that is a measurement of Voter Suppression. As a Mississippian, I understand how fellow peers and educated Mississippians relocate to other states that empower cultural and diversity with laws of government that are not used to hinder the due process of elections.”
As of the time this article was written, according to the court transcripts, Congress has since been asked to create a new formula in based on the conditions of today’s society.
