Voting Rights in Peril

Some contend that the 1965 Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness, and hold up President Obama as proof-positive that times have changed.

But have they changed enough?

In April, the Supreme Court is slated to decide whether part of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. It is conceivable that the high court could strike down Section 5 of the law, which requires states and other jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to pre-clear any changes in voting rules with the U.S. Justice Department to ensure the changes cannot hurt minorities.

“Those of us who have been involved in the voting rights struggle have always viewed the Voting Rights Act as a temporary transitional remedy,” said Rep. Melvin Watt , D-N.C., who helped push through the act’s reauthorization three years ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struggled with the issue of race for years, and the country’s changing demographics isn’t making the task any easier.

When the court debated the midterm Texas redistricting by former House Speaker Tom DeLay, justices sent out a mixed message about race, redistricting and the Voting Rights Act, the The landmark civil rights law created to overcome a legacy of poll taxes, whites-only primaries and literacy tests, especially in Southern states.

This week, in another decision the high court seems to be saying that unless the population of a district is at least 50 percent minority, then it’s not black or brown enough to be protected by the law.

The decision leaves in question the drawing of crossover, or coalition districts, where African-Americans vote with whites, Hispanics or other ethnic groups to elect their candidates of choice.

Justice Clarence Thomas , as usual, sided with the rest of the conservative wing of the court — Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — in arguing that unless minorities make up more than half the voting population in a district, they are not protected by the Voting Rights Act. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy , considered a swing vote on the court, joined them.

In his opinion, some think Kennedy signaled that he too believes the Voting Rights Act is still needed. “Racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history,” Justice Kennedy wrote. But the goal of the Voting Rights Act, he continued, was to “hasten the waning of racism in American politics” rather than to “entrench racial differences.”

Fifty percent sounds like a pretty arbitrary number, until you start thinking about the other time the court linked a number with race. As I recall, that three-fifths formula didn’t work out too well.

Click to read the rest.