This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-voter-rights-act-racism-over
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The supreme court guts the Voter Rights Act … since racism is over | The supreme court guts the Voter Rights Act … since racism is over |
| (about 21 hours later) | |
| Sure, the headlines today are all about the Supreme Court's decision to declare Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. In one big swoop, the court basically said that a law passed in 1965 has served its purpose. | Sure, the headlines today are all about the Supreme Court's decision to declare Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. In one big swoop, the court basically said that a law passed in 1965 has served its purpose. |
| The law was put in place largely to ensure that states didn't make changes to election rules without seeking federal approval first. It was an extra check against any racially motivated actions to prevent people (often minorities) from getting to the polls. Today the court invalided the formula that determines which jurisdictions' voting laws must seek that permission from the Department of Justice before making any changes. | The law was put in place largely to ensure that states didn't make changes to election rules without seeking federal approval first. It was an extra check against any racially motivated actions to prevent people (often minorities) from getting to the polls. Today the court invalided the formula that determines which jurisdictions' voting laws must seek that permission from the Department of Justice before making any changes. |
| In a crafty legal move, the conservative justices didn't strike down Section 5 of the law, which creates the system for "preclearance". However, the reality is that after today no jurisdictions will have to seek preclearance unless Congress changes the formula. | In a crafty legal move, the conservative justices didn't strike down Section 5 of the law, which creates the system for "preclearance". However, the reality is that after today no jurisdictions will have to seek preclearance unless Congress changes the formula. |
| But here's the real story: according to Chief Justice John Roberts, "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare." With a stroke of his pen, he effectively declared the end of racism in America. Who knew the court had such authority? As Justice Elena Kagan put it during oral arguments, "We have the power now to decide whether racial discrimination has been solved? I did not think that fell within our bailiwick." Roberts' whole assertion that racism is gone is especially galling given that the chief justice's support for that conclusion was publically invalidated. During oral arguments, Roberts smugly challenged the government's lawyer: | But here's the real story: according to Chief Justice John Roberts, "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare." With a stroke of his pen, he effectively declared the end of racism in America. Who knew the court had such authority? As Justice Elena Kagan put it during oral arguments, "We have the power now to decide whether racial discrimination has been solved? I did not think that fell within our bailiwick." Roberts' whole assertion that racism is gone is especially galling given that the chief justice's support for that conclusion was publically invalidated. During oral arguments, Roberts smugly challenged the government's lawyer: |
| "Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout?" Roberts asked Donald Verrilli Jr., solicitor general for the Department of Justice, during Wednesday's arguments. "I do not know that," Verrilli answered. "Massachusetts," Roberts responded, adding that even Mississippi has a narrower gap. Roberts later asked if Verrilli knew which state has the greatest disparity in registration. Again, Roberts said it was Massachusetts. | "Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout?" Roberts asked Donald Verrilli Jr., solicitor general for the Department of Justice, during Wednesday's arguments. "I do not know that," Verrilli answered. "Massachusetts," Roberts responded, adding that even Mississippi has a narrower gap. Roberts later asked if Verrilli knew which state has the greatest disparity in registration. Again, Roberts said it was Massachusetts. |
The recent history of the VRA itself belies Roberts' opinion. Justice Ruth Bader We've seen the end of racism announced in the face of contradictory evidence before. The end of racism has a long and storied history in American politics, gaining a riveting new chapter on Election Day 2008. The complete book on the end of racism probably started sometime around the time it was named as a problem. With each new gain for their civil rights, someone is certain to assure the oppressed class that their struggle is over. Congratulations, you can stop being all in our face about it now! This is how hard-won access to basic dignity becomes a "special" right in the eyes of those who've always had it – and sometimes especially those who have forgotten when they didn't. (See Marco Rubio casting doubt on the need for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.") The most charitable interpretation of this attitude among the privileged is that they don't realize that stasis is a form of victory for them, that for the oppressed to cease pushing forward inevitably means losing ground. The less charitable interpretation is that the gains made by blacks/women/gays (pick one. Or pick all.) unsettle them, and they wish to use a break in the contest as an opportunity to regroup and come back with a new set of strategies. When these malicious actors point to, say, President Obama's election as proof of the end of racism, they are also are wondering how to keep it from happening again. Overturning Section 4 is a good start. It's actually a more insidious and potentially more enduring form of VRA destruction than vacating Section 5. Overturning Section 5 would be tantamount to suggesting that those targeted by a state for discrimination have no right to pre-emptively block that discrimination. Well, that would be bad. I mean, if you can prove you've been discriminated against, of course you should have recourse to keep it from happening. Demolishing Section 4, however, confiscates the tools for proving you've been discriminated against. Put simply: Getting rid of Section 5 would suggest that nothing should be done about racism, if it exists. Gutting section 4 is a denial of its existence. This decision is the judicial equivalent of parents breaking the news about Santa: "Santa would bring you presents, Virginia, but there is no Santa." Roberts' opinion is crafty and cynical in escaping blame for what might happen in the wake of the decision: "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination," he writes, and allows that Section 5 might need to be used in some cases. So, you know, "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions." With this prescription, the highest court, admired by the public for its distance from the venality of legislative politics, today took knowing advantage of the congressional dysfunction that has made it look so noble by comparison. Civil rights pioneer and Georgia Congressman John Lewis told reporters that the decision "put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act". I'd argue it was not the clean death of a dagger in the heart, but the messy and excruciatingly painful end of a shot in the gut. In real life, it's just a slower way to go; in this situation, it's a wound that might not be fatal, should the popular will be expressed forcefully enough. Call your congressman today and demand that they call Roberts' bluff. Because racism may alive and well, but so is justice – and you can be a part of it. | The Boston Globe was muted in its correction: as far as registration goes, "a review of those census data appears to contradict Roberts, showing such states as Washington, Arizona, and Minnesota with similar if not bigger gaps between black and white voters." And turn out? Ok: "A larger percentage of blacks voted in Mississippi than whites, one percentage point more." The recent history of the VRA itself belies Roberts' opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent is worth reading in its entirety (it's plain-spoken and admirably restrained) but just to cite one example of the law's continued utility: The DOJ rejected jurisdictions' preclearance applications in over 700 cases between 1982 and 2006, and 31 times since then. If the jurisdictions targeted by the VRA no longer seek to "blatantly evade federal decrees," then how come, well, they keep doing it? We've seen the end of racism announced in the face of contradictory evidence before. The end of racism has a long and storied history in American politics, gaining a riveting new chapter on Election Day 2008. The complete book on the end of racism probably started sometime around the time it was named as a problem. With each new gain for their civil rights, someone is certain to assure the oppressed class that their struggle is over. Congratulations, you can stop being all in our face about it now! This is how hard-won access to basic dignity becomes a "special" right in the eyes of those who've always had it – and sometimes especially those who have forgotten when they didn't. (See Marco Rubio casting doubt on the need for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.") The most charitable interpretation of this attitude among the privileged is that they don't realize that stasis is a form of victory for them, that for the oppressed to cease pushing forward inevitably means losing ground. The less charitable interpretation is that the gains made by blacks/women/gays (pick one. Or pick all.) unsettle them, and they wish to use a break in the contest as an opportunity to regroup and come back with a new set of strategies. When these malicious actors point to, say, President Obama's election as proof of the end of racism, they are also are wondering how to keep it from happening again. Overturning Section 4 is a good start. It's actually a more insidious and potentially more enduring form of VRA destruction than vacating Section 5. Overturning Section 5 would be tantamount to suggesting that those targeted by a state for discrimination have no right to pre-emptively block that discrimination. Well, that would be bad. I mean, if you can prove you've been discriminated against, of course you should have recourse to keep it from happening. Demolishing Section 4, however, confiscates the tools for proving you've been discriminated against. Put simply: Getting rid of Section 5 would suggest that nothing should be done about racism, if it exists. Gutting section 4 is a denial of its existence. This decision is the judicial equivalent of parents breaking the news about Santa: "Santa would bring you presents, Virginia, but there is no Santa." Roberts' opinion is crafty and cynical in escaping blame for what might happen in the wake of the decision: "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination," he writes, and allows that Section 5 might need to be used in some cases. So, you know, "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions." With this prescription, the highest court, admired by the public for its distance from the venality of legislative politics, today took knowing advantage of the congressional dysfunction that has made it look so noble by comparison. Civil rights pioneer and Georgia Congressman John Lewis told reporters that the decision "put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act". I'd argue it was not the clean death of a dagger in the heart, but the messy and excruciatingly painful end of a shot in the gut. In real life, it's just a slower way to go; in this situation, it's a wound that might not be fatal, should the popular will be expressed forcefully enough. Call your congressman today and demand that they call Roberts' bluff. Because racism may alive and well, but so is justice – and you can be a part of it. |