Why
is The Voting Rights Act of 1965 vital to the people of the United States? The
question arises because of the most recent case, Shelby County v. Holder, in
which the small county in Alabama challenged the constitutionality of Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act in July of 2012, while Eric Holder, Attorney General,
defends it.
The
petition by Shelby County was granted in November of 2012 and limited to one
important question: “Whether Congress decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section
4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of
the United States Constitution.” (Shelby County, Alabama, Petitioner v. Eric
H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.) If the Supreme Court rules
Section 5 to be constitutional, the act will remain the same until 2031 or
until it is challenged again. However, if Section 5 is found unconstitutional,
Congress will be forced to come together to amend something which they
reaffirmed only seven years earlier with “a unanimous vote in the Senate and
nearly unanimous vote in the House.” (Leahy)
It
has been nearly 48 years since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Civil Rights
activists led by him on a peaceful protest in Selma, Alabama and were viciously
attacked. This unfortunate and historical event led to the signing of the Voting
Rights Act by former President Lyndon B. Johnson, in front of the U.S. Congress and Members of the Cabinet. The
act prohibited “discrimination based on race, and requires certain
jurisdictions to provide bilingual assistance to language minority voters.” (History
of the VRA) Section 5 requires “covered” states “to obtain “preclearance”
from either the District Court for the District of Columbia or the U.S.
Attorney General for any new voting practices and procedures.” (Voting
Rights Act (1965)) This was a monumental victory for the followers and
activists of the Civil Rights movement and signs of progress within our
country.
The act itself has not even existed for a century and it has barely been a decade since the act was reaffirmed. With how long it actually took for the writing and signing of the act and with how many thousands of people leading up to it and even after were violently attacked or even killed over the right to vote and to have their vote count, how could anyone possibly say that the existence of the act and all that it stands for is unconstituional and unnecesary? Unfortunately, there are many today who believe it is unconstitutional and unnecessary.
Justice Antonin Scalia seems to find the act unnecessary and
unconstitutional after being quoted for asking lawyers defending the act “whether
maintaining the pre-clearance formula for nine “covered” states, which are
subject to federal oversight, was really just a “racial entitlement” program
and not a constitutional necessity.” (Troutt) Luckily, there are also many who believe it is still constitutional and necessary. Chairman Patrick Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee believes in the constitutionality
and necessity of the act and is quoted saying that “The right to vote and
to have your vote count is a foundational right because it secures the
effectiveness of the other protections of the law and the Constitution… Ensuring
that all Americans are able to vote and have their vote counted should be an
issue of concern to Democrats and Republicans, and a matter of conscience for
all of us regardless of political party.” (Leahy)
The act is completely necessary and contitutional. The only thing that should have been and should be changed is the number of "covered" states that need to obtain "preclearance". It should have always been all 50 states to completely ensure protection from discrimination of the right to vote for all. However, in
the event that the Supreme Court rules Section 5 to be unconstitutional and the
ball is thrown back into the court of the Congress to be amended, this would be the opportune time to make it a reality. By doing so, there will be two
outcomes. First, this will ensure the voting rights of all individuals, regardless
of race/ethnicity and gender, are protected from discrimination . Second,
requiring all 50 states to be “covered” will project a kind of uniformity throughout the country and will get rid of any speculations or arguments of discrimination
being directed at the past and present “covered” states and favoritism of those current states not or
no longer “covered”.
Former
President Johnson once said, “Until every qualified person regardless of . . .
the color of his skin has the right, unquestioned and unrestrained, to go in
and cast his ballot in every precinct in this great land of ours, I am not
going to be satisfied.” (President Johnson Speech at Voting Rights Act
Passage) We, as the people of the United States, should not be satisfied
either. The Voting Rights act not only needs to stay, but it also needs to
ensure protection from discrimination from all 50 states.
-Nicole
Wood
Sources:
Leahy
(D-Vt.), Chairman Patrick. United States. Senate Judiciary Committee. Judiciary
Holds Hearing On Voting Rights Act And The 2012 Elections. Washington, D.C.
2012. Web. http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/judiciary-holds-hearing-on-voting-rights-act-and-the-2012-elections.
Troutt,
David Dante. "Voting Rights: Scalia v. minority protection." Reauters
(The Great Debate). 05 Mar 2013: n. page. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/05/voting-rights-scalia-v-minority-protection/.
United
States. National Archives and Records Administration. Voting Rights Act
(1965). College Park. Web. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100.
United
States. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. History of the VRA.
Washington, D.C. Web. http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/johnson-speech.html.
United
States. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. President
Johnson Speech at Voting Rights Act Passage. Washington, D.C. Web. http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/johnson-speech.html.
(Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B.
Johnson, 1965. Volume II, entry 394, pp. 811-815. Washington, D. C.: Government
Printing Office, 1966.)
No comments:
Post a Comment