The Voting Rights Act

June 21, 2006 RSS Feed 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?

Reader Comments

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

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

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.

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Why the Catholic Contraception Controversy Is a Phony Battle

The Catholic Church is asking the Obama administration to do something it cannot do itself: limit birth control use.

Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

The so-called "accommodation" on contraceptive coverage reinforces the administration's commitment to its pro-choice agenda.

On Women in Combat, Rick Santorum Insults Military Men

To suggest that the men in our armed forces cannot control their emotions is a real slap at the professionals who wear the uniform.

To Avoid a Failed February, Mitt Romney Needs a Big Idea

Mitt Romney needs a big idea to rouse enthusiasm for his campaign.

How Mitt Romney Should Respond to the Improving Economy

Even if the economy continues to improve, Mitt Romney still can present a better plan than Barack Obama's.

The Problems With the Catholic Church and Birth Control

The Catholic Church's stance on birth control is a slippery slope, as an Obama administration ruling highlights.

Democrats Rebelling Against Obama Birth Control Policy

Some Democrats are among most publicly opposed the an Obama policy requiring religious institutions to cover contraceptives.

Catholic Birth Control Fight About Healthcare, Not Just Religion

The framing of the issue of required contraceptive coverage in religious terms obscures the real question.