Menu
Share
Share this story
Close X
 
Switch to Desktop Site

To protect democracy, Supreme Court must fully uphold Voting Rights Act

Today, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act  in the case Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. After a year of politicians manipulating voting laws, the Court must uphold this protection and safeguard every American’s fundamental right to vote.

Image

President Lyndon B. Johnson holds the signed Voting Rights Act at the White House Aug. 6, 1965. The Supreme Court begins hearings today on the constitutionality of Sect. 5 of the Act, which op-ed contributors Myrna Pérez and Lucy Zhou say 'is able to block discrimination before it occurs, acting as both a deterrent and a remedy to state and local governments whose laws end up...denying American citizens the equal right to vote.'

AP/file

About these ads

For generations, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 has been instrumental in making the promise of our democracy a reality for millions of citizens. Today, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Act ­– one of the most effective civil rights tools in our nation’s history – in the case Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. After a year where politicians manipulated voting laws for their own benefit, the Court must uphold this protection and safeguard every American’s fundamental right to vote.

Section 5 requires certain states and jurisdictions with documented histories of denying minority voting-rights to gain approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before changing voting procedures. This “preclearance” process is designed to ensure the changes do not discriminate against minority voters, either intentionally or unintentionally. Shelby County, a largely white suburb of Birmingham, filed suit in 2010, claiming Section 5 is unconstitutional because it hurts states’ rights.

Opponents of the law say it is unfair for some states to have to follow these rules. But the Supreme Court rejected this argument shortly after the Act was originally enacted in 1965. In total, four separate Court decisions have upheld the Act through the decades, and in 2006, Congress voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize it.

Opponents also argue the law is no longer necessary – that discrimination in our electoral process is a thing of the past. But the recent push to restrict voting, which came heavily in jurisdictions covered by Section 5, proves them wrong.   

Next

Page:   1   |   2   |   3


Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Loading...