Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Celebrating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act by Leaving it Alone

    Posted by David McFadden on August 20th, 2015 (All posts by )

    The fiftieth anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon Johnson August 6, 1965, has revived proposals to fill a much-needed gap in the Act, to borrow one of Hanna Gray’s favorite expressions.

    The gap is thanks to the felicitous 2013 Supreme Court case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which I discussed last year in these pages. The Court held unconstitutional the Act’s archaic test for determining which states must get preclearance from the Justice Department or from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to change their election laws. The preclearance requirement–Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act–was supposed to be a temporary, emergency provision expiring five years after the Voting Rights Act became effective. But as Milton Friedman said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Congress renewed Section 5 four times, most recently in 2006, when Congress renewed it for another 25 years.

    Writing for the Court in Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice Roberts said that preclearance sharply departs from basic constitutional principles by allowing the federal government to veto state laws before they go into effect, reversing the burden of proof, and forcing an oddly selected group of the states to beseech the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department or a distant court to allow them to implement a new election law.

    The Court held that this onerous regime can no longer be based on a coverage formula that sweeps in states because in the 1960s or 1970s they had low voter turnout or a literacy test. Striking down the coverage formula left Section 2 of the Act still in effect. Under Section 2, state voting laws can still be challenged in court. Section 2 does not reverse the burden of proof but leaves it where it normally is in the law—on the challenger.

    Nonetheless, the party line still compels liberals to recite, in nearly every article in which they mention the subject, that in Shelby County the Supreme Court “gutted” the Voting Rights Act–or better yet committed an “Historic Gutting.” Substituting a synonym for “gutted” seems to be frowned upon and may even require a trigger warning.

    “Congress must restore the Voting Rights Act,” wrote the President in a letter to the editor of the New York Times last week. He and others on left remain under the misconception that in striking down the coverage formula for preclearance, the Supreme Court invited Congress to write a new one and now Congress just needs to get about the business of accepting his invitation. There was no invitation, just a warning that a new preclearance formula based on current conditions would raise the question of whether the preclearance requirement itself is unconstitutional.

    Republicans in Congress do not need to help set the stage for that controversy. Instead, they should take the offensive and counter that as the states ought not to be treated like vassals, it’s time to consider repealing Section 5 altogether. Short of that, they should leave to languish in committee proposals to rehabilitate an anachronistic affront to federalism.

     

    7 Responses to “Celebrating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act by Leaving it Alone”

    1. Robert Schwartz Says:

      There is no way to have an intelligent public discussion of this subject. Any Democrat proposals will be accompanied by a tidal wave of denunciations of racism. Heck, look at the nonsense they produce about requiring IDs to vote. The best thing the Republicans can do is not let any legislative proposals see the light of day. No hearings, no committee votes, etc.

    2. TMLutas Says:

      There is an opportunity to have a discussion of normality. Article 5, it seems to me, works a sort of peculiar corruption of blood. I am not presumed racist in Indiana but if I move to South Carolina (which I will be doing soon) I suffer a taint that reduces my political rights because I have come into contact with some sort of intergenerational racist cooties. We would benefit, in general, from a listing and striking of all the temporary, emergency measures that we have extended forever. Normal governance, normal constitutional order is what we should try for.

    3. Mike K Says:

      This is second only to the rage by the left at Citizens United.

    4. TimL Says:

      –and then you have this:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/we-used-to-count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-reparations-give-them-53-of-a-vote/?hpid=z3

      Black votes should count 5/3 rds white votes. Not comedic.

    5. Jonathan Says:

      Would the descendants of whites who fought for the Union during the Civil War also get privileged voting status?

    6. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      How about the descendents of whites who fought in the Revolutionary War? Or the War of 1812? How about those whose family invested in steel mills or built farms or opened mines that increased the standard of living of everyone? Do those who can’t demonstrate they’ve contributed to society lose voting rights?

    7. Ginny Says:

      Perhaps conduct that surely isn’t counting or is nullifying votes in some precincts might lead to a useful cleansing anger. I can’t see Rubio’s parents putting up with that crap when they were willing to leave Cuba nor can I see Condoleeza Rice or Frederick Douglass. A sense of history might instill pride and useful self assertion instead of aimless grievance.