Reporting For News Team One
Washington, DC – Voting Rights Act of 1965 Section 4 Repeal 2013
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reversed Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Section 4 stipulated protections to prevent voter discrimination in certain U.S. states and/or localities who are or were known to disenfranchise individuals attempting to vote. This part of the 1965 VRA outlawed voter disenfranchisement practices such as preventing voter registration; applying voter literacy tests; requiring education level standards; specifying English language proficiency; and issuing identification requirements.
SCOTUS gutted the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution Voting Rights Act
In addition, Section 4 held that federal authorities could intervene in local elections to ensure voter rights were upheld and that any new local voting laws would have to be approved by federal authorities. (United States Department of Justice, Section Four of the Voter Rights Act).
When the first provisions of the VRA legislation were enacted in 1965, the enactment was temporary. Subsequent reauthorizations would occur in 1975, 1982, and 2006 by the US Congress.
In 2012, Shelby County of Alabama challenged the constitutionality of the Act in the United State Supreme Court [see SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Syllabus, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 12–96. Argued February 27, 2013—Decided June 25, 2013].
Chief Justice John Roberts opined “Our country has changed….Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions.” Further, Chief Justice Roberts stated “[the current coverage system is] based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
This line of reasoning was principal in justifying the repeal of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.
With a dissenting opinion from the court majority, Justice Ginsburg argued “for a half century….a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting….[and]….the court errs egregiously….by overriding Congress’s decision.”
Despite this strong opinionated view of the Act, Section Four’s success regulated the prevention of local voter disenfranchisement. The court majority did not agree with Justice Ginsburg.
Principles of federalism, a state’s rights to govern freely, was also a court majority view.
Analysis
Giving the daunting social issues of African Americans today, SCOTUS’s repeal of 1965 Voting Rights Act is troubling.
These pressing African American social issues cannot be ignored as the public evaluates this ruling.
Unlike direct racism at polls, one could draw the conclusion that black cultural deficiency labels theoretic social problems invalid. It would mean that everywhere in America, Black people are culturally homogenic in each region.
Therefore, SCOTUS’s repeal of Section 4 of the VRA is troublesome, due to the prevalence of major social problems African Americans face.
When this monumental decision was mentioned in the media last year, it was barely and briefly mentioned.
In one local radio discussion that I heard at the time, the radio commentator and callers did not understand the specifics of the new ruling, nut neither did I.
On June 25, 2013, President Obama stated “while today’s decision is a setback, it does not represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination.”
In the 1960s there was mass public protest, lives lost, and civil unrest to bring Civil Rights social policy to legislation.
But, 2013 in contrast and since then, there has been very little public discourse in the media or in communities.
A lot has changed since 1965, yet much has remained the same.
REFERENCES
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
0 Comments