In 2006, Congress renewed a provision of the 1964 Voting Rights Act that the United States Supreme Court has struck down. In effect, the judiciary is second guessing Congress under cover of what amounts to a states rights argument. Of course, in political discourse, both “states rights” and “judicial activism” are applied so selectively that they mostly boil down to “stuff I like” and “stuff I don’t like.”
Lyle Denniston, legal analyst for SCOTUSblog breaks down the opinion here. The opinion is Shelby County (Alabama) v. Holder. One of the main issues was section 4 of the act which provided a coverage formula that subjected certain areas of the country – mostly the old Confederacy – to special restrictions given the historical prevalence of racist voter discrimination. In 2006, the U.S. Congress renewed that formula for another 25 years.
Certain states have to get pre-clearance from the federal government before they can change voting procedures. The Supreme Court, in today’s decision, complained that this is unfair because it deprives these states of equal sovereignty under . . . well, these strict constructionists don’t cite anything. But, let’s say that this was the default setting under the Constitution. It’s not an unreasonable declaration — even if it might come out of a penumbra of some sort.
But, the thing is, all of the covered states are south of the Mason-Dixon line. There was an incident, well known in some historical circles, where Southern states committed treason against the United States in pursuit of their state’s rights to allow some individuals to own other individuals. After their rebellion was put down, these states spent the better part of a century imposing Jim Crow laws. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were prevalent in these areas for approximately 450 years. The Voting Rights Act is about 50 years old, and, in 2006, Congress made a determination that a formula that covered a number of Confederate States was still appropriate. The arbiter of facts and credibility in a judicial situation – the District Court – agreed. Apparently reweighing the facts, substituting its own judgment for that of Congress and the District Court, the Supreme Court has determined that section 4 is unconstitutional — based on what Constitutional provision, I remain uncertain.
The Supreme Court has used its notion of “equal sovereignty” to substitute its judgment for that of Congress. It is difficult to square that with a stated preference for judicial restraint; particularly when one considers that the Supreme Court’s main complaint is that Congress is using decades old data to combat a centuries old problem.
It’s worth noting that when it was reauthorized in 2006, it passed the Senate 98-0. Every Senator from a state governed by the Voting Rights Act* voted in favor of reauthorization and adoption of the thousands of pages of evidence that supported its need. In the House, only about 30 Representatives voted against reauthorization. But SCOTUS knows better whether the law is still necessary.
*I don’t know which 2 Senators didn’t vote or why.
Senator Enzi (R-WY) and Senator Crapo (R-ID)
source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00212
To be completely fair: 15,000 pages of documentation and over 300 documented cases of rejected laws passed within the covered areas.
Here’s the House vote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/h374
First Citizens United; now this. It’s about as close to a coup as we ever get in this country. But, with the gun culture revving up along side, there may be an armed one.
I am sorry if I repeat myself, but I shall add to my comment of the other day: the States have powers; people have rights. The notion that States are sovereign is silly. There only can be one sovereign authority in any governmental system. The sovereignty is the political body in a society recognized as possessing the authority to enforce its decisions with the ultimate enforcement mechanism—violence. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution and the Civil War demonstrate the principle. Finally, there were two reasons or categories of reasons for the Civil War, to be fair. The white people of the Northern States who could vote (i.e., white males) were not very pro-abolitionist. The North wanted to preserve the Union for economic reasons. As the statements of purpose four Southern States that issued such indicates, those States believed they had States “rights”—to enslave human beings. The end of slavery was a by-product of the Civil War, not an original goal. That is a sorry thing about our history, that such an evil institution might have continued if only Jefferson Davis and his ilk had been more politically compliant and agreed to a few concessions. In any event, our country suffers today still from the impact of slavery.
You’re right that elimination of slavery was not (initially anyway) a driving force for the North. But, preservation of slavery was the primary motivation for the South. Defeat of the Southern rebels was a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the elimination of slavery.
Matters that are clearly unconstitutional repeatedly befuddle you.
I think you’re not truly clear on, or you want to redefine, what a “state” is,” what a “union” is, what a “constitution” is, what “ratification” truly implies.
Go home, sir, you are drunk.