The Voting Rights Act

June 21, 2006 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment

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

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

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

advertisement