Uncategorized

More on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

With just days  left before the Supreme Court hears argument in the case seeking elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder,  legal analyst Andrew Cohen reminds us, in “After 50 Years, the Voting Rights Act’s Biggest Threat: The Supreme Court,” how far we came after the Act became law in 1965, and how fast we’d fall back if the Supreme Court throws out that section:

One of the great ironies of the Shelby County case is its timing. When county officials filed their declaratory action in April 2010 they had every reason to think that Section 5 was dead in the water.

But a funny thing happened to this challenge on its way to the Shelby County case. The entire landscape of voting rights changed in a relative blink. And the change restored and renewed the Act by reminding hundreds of millions of Americans, a whole new generation of voters, of the purpose and effect of the old law. So far no one has come up with an accurate count (or even a reliable ballpark figure) of how many Americans got to vote last election because the Voting Rights Act protected them from state or local election laws that would have disenfranchised them. But considering the number of successful challenges, not to mention the deterrent effect noted below, the number cannot be low.

 

 

6 Comments


  1. david esmay

    February 22, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    Considering the fact that Mississippi finally abolished slavery this week and acknowledge the 13th Amendment, I’d say the 1965 VAR has at least another 100 years of relevancy.

  2. Riger Clegg

    February 22, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overturn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act

    What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.

    There are other federal laws available to protect the rights of voters, and they don’t raise the problems that Section 5 does.

  3. david esmay

    February 22, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    The fight over Section 5 is about the legality of voter ID’s pure and simple. If Section 5 is struck down, then states can get away with voter ID laws and disenfranchise more voters, ones that don’t vote Republican.

    11% of voters don’t have state issued ID’s, most are either students, the disabled, the elderly, and the poor. Many don’t have transportation or live long distances from state offices that issue ID’s, and these people don’t vote Republican.

  4. Frances Jenkins

    February 23, 2013 at 6:13 am

    David, Your information is flawed. Must have come from Blueprint.

  5. david esmay

    February 25, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Frances, don’t let your mind wander. It’s too small to be out on it’s own.

  6. david esmay

    February 25, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    By the by, my information comes from a study done by the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law. Your information is extracted from the backside of an elephant and filtered through a vacuous sieve.

Check Also

State Supreme Court rules retroactive application of teacher tenure repeal is unconstitutional

The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

A pivotal legislative task force may be just beginning its dive into North Carolina’s school funding [...]

The controversy over “Silent Sam,” the Confederate monument on UNC’s Chapel Hill campus, has been ra [...]

North Carolina tries to mine its swine and deal with a poop problem that keeps piling up A blanket o [...]

This story is part of "Peak Pig," an examination of the hog industry co-published with Env [...]

Five years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a jaw-dropping civil rights lawsuit again [...]

Will Burr and Tillis really vote for this? For much of the 20th Century, one of the labels that Amer [...]

President Trump and Congressional Republicans aim to rebrand enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest ho [...]

20—number of years since a bipartisan coalition in Congress passed the Children’s Health Insurance P [...]

Spotlight on Journalism

We invite you to join a special celebration of investigative journalism! The evening will feature Mike Rezendes, a member of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe Spotlight Team known for their coverage of the cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Tickets available NOW!

Spotlight On Journalism

This event will benefit NC Policy Watch, a project of the North Carolina Justice Center. Sponsorship opportunities available now!

Featured | Special Projects

NC Budget 2017
The maze of the NC Budget is complex. Follow the stories to follow the money.
Read more


NC Redistricting 2017
New map, new districts, new lawmakers. Here’s what you need to know about gerrymandering in NC.
Read more