Should the Supreme Court Strike Down the 'Preclearance' Provision of the Voting Rights Act? >
Striking Down Section 5 Would Mark a Return to Constitutional Order
The days of preventing minorities from voting are long gone
February 27, 2013
About Edward Blum:
Edward Blum is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the director of the Project on Fair Representation. He is the author of The Unintended Consequences of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Nearly four years ago, in an important case from Texas, the justices on the Supreme Court signaled that Sections (4b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were in grave need of modernization. Sadly, Congress and the administration ignored this suggestion, so it is now up to the Court to declare these provisions unconstitutional. That welcome outcome would validate what most Americans already believe—that minorities in the Deep South and elsewhere have the same opportunities to register to vote and participate in elections as do minorities in the rest of the country.
Back in 1965, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was necessary to overcome the never-ending mischief that election officials employed to keep African-Americans from registering and voting. But those days are long gone. Today, in the states and jurisdictions still subject to the "preclearance" requirement of Section 5 (which prohibits any changes in election laws or procedures before Washington's approval) minorities register to vote and turn out in elections at rates that exceed those of whites. It makes no sense today for Alaska, Arizona, and Alabama to be subject to these requirements, but not Nevada, Arkansas, or Tennessee.
[See a collection of political cartoons on Congress.]
As the Court wrote in the Texas case, "The evil that Section 5 is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance. ... The statute's coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions."
The time has come to end the punishment and federal bureaucratic oversight of nearly 25 percent of the nation's population.
If the Supreme Court strikes down these provisions, as it should, an important constitutional order will be restored: All 50 states must be treated equally under our system of laws.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.
- Other Arguments
-
#17041
No — Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is needed now more than ever
WENDY WEISER, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
-
#25838
No — The Constitution requires the Supreme Court to side with Congress on the Voting Rights Act
DAVID GANS, Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at Constitutional Accountability Center
-
#34835
No — Preclearance provision of Voting Rights Act is still stopping discrimination today
WADE HENDERSON, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
-
#44346
Yes — The heart of the Voting Rights Act is Section 2—Section 5 was meant to be temporary
HANS A. VON SPAKOVSKY, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation
-
#63046
Yes — Modern use of Section 5 raises serious constitutional concerns
ILYA SHAPIRO, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
Reader Comments (