Skip to main content

I was scrolling through Talking Points Memo this morning on the metro when I came across a story titled “Overturning The Voting Rights Act Would Be Seminal Moment For Conservative Legal Movement,” detailing how conservative groups are hoping to overturn the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law they consider to be outdated. The oral arguments will begin this week in the Supreme Court.

In particular, conservative groups are hoping to knock down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is the section blocking changes to voting procedures until they’ve been properly reviewed. From the Department of Justice:

“Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.”
The argument that conservatives are making is that the law was created under segregation, and is no longer necessary:
“The only reason Section 5 was originally justified and upheld by the courts was because of Jim Crow — the unusual circumstances at the time in terms of voter disenfranchisement,” Ilya Shapiro, the editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review who filed an amicus brief in the case, told TPM. “I don’t think there’s a way to justify Section 5 anymore.”
No reason to justify Section 5? Were we watching the same election?

There are plenty of reasons to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act. This election was rife with conservative groups trying to limit the amount of “voter fraud” (excluding thousands of poor, elderly, young and minority voters) to make sure this was a “fair election” (make sure that conservatives kept their seats). And rather than charging a poll tax, using the Grandfather Clause or asking voters to take a literacy test, states were keeping people away from the polls in new ways – and not just in the South.

This was the election where Pennsylvania did everything it could to stop minority voter turnout. In 2012, billboards popped up telling voters that they needed a photo ID to vote – many of them completely in Spanish - when in reality that law wouldn’t go into effect until the following election. Poll watchers monitored predominantly African-American voter districts to make sure there was no “fraud,” and the Department of Justice investigated Allegheny County for voter suppression.

This was the election where Ohio’s Tea Party took it upon themselves to personally police the voter rolls, attempting to purge thousands of African Americans, Latinos, students and poor people from the rolls in the counties President Obama won in 2008.

This was the election where Florida slashed early voting hours, which are predominantly used by minority voters and low wage workers who cannot afford to miss work to vote – and even admitted that they cut the hours for to suppress minority voting. Voters received calls telling them the wrong election day in poor and The state also targeted thousands of Hispanics as “potential non-citizens” so they could be purged from voter rolls. When the state voter board refused to purge the rolls, Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner vowed to continue his quest to stop the so-called fraud, saying it was his “moral duty” to purge these people from the rolls.

With outrageous efforts like these (and crazies like Ken Detzner in charge), this was the election that made it alarmingly clear the Voting Rights Act is more important than ever.

And in the past, Even Congress agrees; they’ve renewed it in 1966, 1973, 1980, 1999, and again in 2006. In fact, in 2006 Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act on the basis that “vestiges of discrimination in voting continue to exist as demonstrated by second generation barriers constructed to prevent minority voters from fully participating in the electoral process.”

In simple language, new ways of keeping minority voters out of the polls are popping up around the country, especially in swing states, and it’s still important to stop that from happening.

Our country doesn’t have the same Jim Crow segregationist laws that we did in 1965, and that leads many leading conservatives to believe we can do without the Voting Rights Act. But even with those laws no longer on the books, suppression of minority voting rights is still a huge problem, in both the north and the south. And the suppression isn’t just limited to African Americans: as the Latino population has grown, so have the efforts to keep Hispanic voters from voting (especially in swing states – both of these groups skew Democratic).

Yes, we've come a long way since 1965. But voter rights have taken steps backward in progress over the past few elections, and it cannot be allowed to continue. Opponents of the Voting Rights Act call it “outdated” and irrelevant, but I argue with examples like these and so many  more, that it is more vital and important to renew than ever – especially because the opponents of the Voting Rights Act are the ones suppressing voting to begin with. The law may be old and its purpose may be seemingly outdated, but it’s the best legal pathway to make sure that all Americans are allowed to vote, regardless of ethnicity, and it must be preserved.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site