Las Vegas Sun

July 28, 2014

Currently: 93° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

OTHER VOICES:

Preventing voting discrimination

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case from Shelby County, Ala., challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, our nation’s most effective tool in combating racial discrimination in voting.

The importance of this case can’t be overstated. At stake is the future of our democracy. The protections in the Voting Rights Act affect millions of black, Hispanic, Asian-American and American Indian citizens, who depend on it to ensure they can participate in our elections and have a voice in our democracy.

Section 5 requires the states and local jurisdictions proven to have the most egregious histories of racial and ethnic voting discrimination to receive preapproval — or “preclearance” — from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before making any election-related change, such as passing restrictive voter ID laws, limiting hours for early voting, moving a polling place or redrawing city council districts.

Section 5 currently applies to all or parts of 16 states, including Alabama and Mississippi, but also states such as Arizona, New York and South Dakota. Like flu shots, Section 5 was prescribed to treat those places with the most aggressive strains of voting discrimination. Because changes must be precleared before implementation, Section 5 can actually prevent harm by stopping discriminatory laws before they take effect.

Shelby County, a largely white community outside of Birmingham, claims in its appeal to the court that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 without changing the criteria used to determine whether a jurisdiction is covered under Section 5.

In essence, the county contends that it has changed its ways to such a degree that citizens of color no longer need the protections provided by Section 5.

As civil rights leaders, we would be the first to acknowledge and applaud our nation’s significant progress in expanding access to the ballot box, thanks in large part to the Voting Rights Act. But while it may be tempting to think that voting discrimination is only a vestige of the past, the reality is that many state and local jurisdictions continue to pass laws and make rules that discriminate against voters based on race or ethnicity. And that’s especially true for places covered by Section 5.

Among the evidence presented to Congress when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 was a comprehensive study by University of Michigan Law School that found that voting discrimination was far more common and severe in jurisdictions covered by Section 5 than in the rest of the nation.

That study was part of the 15,000-page record that Congress compiled in the course of the 2006 reauthorization, which involved 21 hearings and testimony of more than 90 witnesses over a 10-month period. The record was so extensive that it was described by one court as “virtually unprecedented.”

Since the law’s reauthorization, we’ve witnessed many continuing efforts to disenfranchise minority voters in areas protected by Section 5, even in the most recent election. Among them:

• South Carolina enacted a discriminatory voter ID law that impacted voters such as 82-year-old Hanna White, who was unable to get a state-issued ID because she’s never had a birth certificate. Because of Section 5 and litigation, South Carolina revised the law to create an exception for anyone with a “reasonable impediment” to obtaining a government-issued photo ID.

• A unanimous three-judge panel declared that the Texas redistricting plan drawn by the state Legislature would have a discriminatory and retrogressive impact against minorities and affirmed that all three maps — congressional, state House of Representatives and state Senate — were in violation of Section 5. The court held that the Legislature was motivated by discriminatory intent when it redrew districts that diluted minority voting strength.

• The Justice Department blocked a proposed redistricting plan in Natchez, Miss., that was made with a discriminatory purpose to deny black voters the ability to elect their candidates of choice.

As a nation, we aspire to the day when voting discrimination is a thing of the past. But that day has not yet arrived. Until it does, we need Section 5, which protects real people from real threats to their right to vote.

Benjamin Todd Jealous is president and CEO of the NAACP. Margaret Moran is national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Voting is a sacrosanct right and needs to be protected and guaranteed by the powers that be to all who are eligible.

    CarmineD

  2. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." Article 1, Section 4, Constitution of the United States.

    Isn't that pretty much what Congress did with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly Section 5?

    I'd think that REAL conservatives, with their desire to hold fairly strictly to the Constitution, would be on the other side of this issue.

  3. Ya, that's why we have Senators misspeaking and calling illegal immigrants "our citizens" and our voters.