Supreme Court justices hint at striking Voting Rights Act provision
By Sam Baker
The Hill
02/27/13 11:57 AM ET
The Supreme Court signaled strongly on Wednesday that it might strike down a section of the Voting Rights Act as the court’s conservative members cast the provision as outdated and unfair.
With a crowd of congressional Democrats and civil rights icons gathered outside, the court heard oral arguments over Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states and counties to get permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
The court’s conservative justices appeared deeply skeptical of the argument that Section 5 is still relevant and, if not, whether leaving it in place is constitutional.
Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Congress could not be trusted to properly evaluate the current need for Section 5. He said the repeated reauthorizations of the law seemed to be an example of “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Lawmakers are too afraid to vote against something called the Voting Rights Act, he said, and will keep applying rules that have outlived their utility.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor seized on Scalia’s comments, asking the lawyer arguing against the Voting Rights Act, “Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement” and “Do you think racial discrimination has ended?”
But the court’s swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, also seemed skeptical of Section 5, questioning whether a law that was clearly needed in the 1960s should still be on the books today.
“The Marshall Plan was very good, too — the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act — but times change,” Kennedy said.
The debate over the relevance of a major piece of civil rights legislation wrapped up just as a statue of Rosa Parks was set to be unveiled across the street at the Capitol.
Congressional Democrats and civil rights leaders rallied outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning. Buses brought activists from Shelby County, Ala., where the case originated, and civil rights icons including Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) argued that Section 5 is still needed to ensure equal access to the polls.
Even before Wednesday’s oral arguments, there were signs that Section 5 might be in trouble. The Supreme Court expressed “serious misgivings” about the provision in a 2009 case, saying the requirements intruded into an area that has traditionally belonged to state and local governments.
The court avoided a broad ruling on constitutional grounds in that case, but its decision to take up the issue again four years later was seen as a strong indication that those misgivings had grown.
Some of the court’s more conservative members, including Chief Justice John Roberts, have also questioned in other contexts whether historic civil rights programs have become outdated as the legacy of slavery and segregation has faded further into history.
President Obama also seemed to signal earlier this week that a loss at the Supreme Court was possible, if not likely. Obama said in a local television interview last week that losing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would not cause people to lose their right to vote.
“People will still have the same rights not to be discriminated against when it comes to voting," Obama said. "You just won't have this mechanism, this tool, that allows you to kind of stay ahead of certain practices."
And the case is especially prominent in light of the long lines and controversial early-voting restrictions of the 2012 elections. Although many of those practices weren’t directly covered by Section 5, civil rights activists argued that they show a continuing problem with unequal voting rights.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/285237-supreme-court-justices-hint-at-striking-down-voting-righst-act-provision |
