Striking down Section 5 would mark a return to constitutional order

Supreme Court by Shutterstock.com

Article Highlights

  • Nearly 4 years ago, the #SCOTUS signaled that Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act needed modernization.

    Tweet This

  • It is now up to the #SCOTUS to declare the outdated Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

    Tweet This

  • If the #SCOTUS strikes down Sections 4(b) & 5 of the Voting Rights Act, important constitutional order will be restored.

    Tweet This

Editor's note: This article originally appeared in US News & World Report's Debate Club in response to the question: Should the Supreme Court strike down the 'preclearance' provision 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.

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.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Edward
Blum

What's new on AEI

With Ukraine, Putin is courting the home crowd
image Ayn Rand vs. Paul Ryan
image Fighting for us: The real stakes in Israel’s war
image Obama failed to stop the Islamic State when he had the chance
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 28
    MON
  • 29
    TUE
  • 30
    WED
  • 31
    THU
  • 01
    FRI
Tuesday, July 29, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Is Medicare's future secure? The 2014 Trustees Report

Please join AEI as the chief actuary for Medicare summarizes the report’s results, followed by a panel discussion of what those spending trends are likely to mean for seniors, taxpayers, the health industry, and federal policy.

Friday, August 01, 2014 | 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Watergate revisited: The reforms and the reality, 40 years later

Please join us as four of Washington’s most distinguished political observers will revisit the Watergate hearings and discuss reforms that followed.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.