Thursday, November 26, 2009

Opinion

Michael Barone

The Voting Rights Act

June 21, 2006 10:00 AM ET | Permanent Link | Print

The most effective civil rights law in our history was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before it was passed, millions of black Americans were effectively denied the right to vote.

By the time of the next presidential election, in 1968, very few blacks were denied access to the ballot, and by 1972, all American blacks could vote. Tomorrow, the House is going to take up reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the current version of which expires in 2007; the reauthorization would extend it 25 years, to 2032. One could argue that reauthorization is unnecessary, since no one seeks to exclude blacks from voting. Or one could argue that it's salutary to keep this law on the books, even though the right to vote is solidly established.

What's harder to argue, in my opinion, is that we need to keep every single provision in the act exactly as it is. Take, for example, the Section 5 provision that requires Justice Department preclearance of any election law changes in a state, county, or township where voter turnout in 1964 was less than half the voting age population at that time. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a freshman Republican from Georgia, has an amendment that would substitute for 1964 any of the three most recent presidential elections. The current provision covers nine states, including Georgia, and parts of seven others. Westmoreland's provision would cover six states, including Georgia, and parts of several others. The original provision was highly useful in the 1960s, when legislators in several southern states were actively trying to prevent blacks from voting. But it seems slightly ridiculous to continue to have the elections in 1964 remain a benchmark until 2032, 68 years later.

It might also be unconstitutional, as law professor and election law blogger Rick Hasen argues here. The Supreme Court approved the provision in question in 1970 after noting that it was "temporary" and "narrowly tailored." But how temporary and narrowly tailored is a law that bases its disparate treatment of states on something that happened in 1964?

Tools: Share | | Comments (0) | Print

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

People who read this also read ...

Thomas Jefferson St.

GOP Can Be Thankful for Strong Polls

But they cannot get complacent.

5 Reasons for a Democratic Thanksgiving

Michael Steele and healthcare reform top the list.

Women Have Say on Health Reform

If it's the year of the women, why are there so few of them?

Turkey Tax

Uncle Sam is joining in on your Thanksgiving dinner.

Ideological Labels Just Don't Fit

Hard-liners don't understand that some of us don't toe an ideological line.

A Decade in Biased Review

How well does the video sum up the last decade?

GOPers Push European-Style Litmus Tests

Some RNC members want strict party platforms. Why do they hate America?

Public Opinion

Should the GOP Have a Litmus Test?

Should the RNC exclude politicians who don't match the party's platform?

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Make USNews.com your home page.