WASHINGTON—Majority conservatives on the Supreme Court criticized one of the pillars of 1960s civil-rights legislation, suggesting the Voting Rights Act had outlived its relevance and was imposing undue burdens on states whose practices are subject to extra federal supervision. The 1965 Voting Rights Act targets states that historically discriminated against minorities, and Section 5 requires some localities, particularly in the South, to get approval in advance from Washington for changes to their voting laws.
At the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts reeled off statistics showing that African-American turnout is now high in Mississippi and relatively low in Massachusetts, suggesting that the South has no monopoly on voting discrimination. Are "citizens in the South more racist than citizens in the North?" he asked the government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
"I do not know the answer to that," Mr. Verrilli replied. But, he said, the court shouldn't second-guess Congress's determination that certain areas require special oversight to prevent violations of the 15th Amendment's guarantee of voting rights.
Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested covered states were demeaned by the Voting Rights Act's requirement for preclearance of voting changes. The requirement effectively put some states under the "trusteeship of the United States government."
"What do you think the Civil War was about?" said Justice Stephen Breyer. "Of course, it was aimed at treating some states differently than others."
Click for Full Text!
Poster Comment:
But while past high-court rulings rejected challenges to the preclearance requirement, in a 2009 decision the justices signaled that the formula for selecting jurisdictions covered by Section 5, last updated with the 1972 election results, may not reflect progress in race relations.
Why aren't all of you out there protesting this?
