http://www.dallasnews.com/news/washington/20130625-supreme-court-strikes-down-voting-rights-act-formula-that-put-heightened-scrutiny-on-texas.ece6/25/13
Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act formula that put heightened scrutiny on Texas TODD J. GILLMAN
Washington Bureau Chief
Published: 25 June 2013 09:26 AM
Updated: 25 June 2013 09:32 AM
WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court has struck down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act that has long put Texas and most of the South under federal scrutiny.
The historic ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, finds that the current formula for picking which states face such hurdles is outdated and unconstitutional.
Until Congress devises a new formula that passes muster, these states no longer need to seek Justice Department approval ahead of time for new voter ID rules, congressional maps and other changes.
The court emphasized that other elements of the landmark law, enacted in 1965 and amended and extended several times since, remain in place. Allegations of bias can still be brought to court after the fact under Section 2, another provision.
“Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2.
We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions,” Roberts wrote.
The ruling is here.
In practice, divisions in Congress — where Republicans control the House and Democrats control the Senate — suggest that it would be unlikely for lawmakers to quickly hammer out a new formula to subject certain states and not others to heightened federal scrutiny. GOP mistrust of the Obama administration Justice Department is running high, as well, making it even less likely Republicans would eagerly restore the authority the Roberts court stripped today.
The Feb. 27 oral arguments exposed a gaping ideological chasm among the justices.
Members of the court’s liberal wing found it hard to accept the argument that discrimination in the South and other targeted states has subsided enough to end decades of scrutiny.
Conservatives openly questioned the justification for treating states differently — particularly when some states that escape extra scrutiny have worse track records on discrimination in recent years.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in divisive cases, expressed concern at the time about putting states under a sort of federal “trusteeship.”
The case hinged on the future of Section 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
That provision requires covered jurisdictions to seek permission — known as preclearance — from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before making any election changes, from moving a polling site to redrawing the maps used to elect school boards, city councils, state legislators and members of Congress.
Even without that provision, Section 2 of the law allows for lawsuits after the fact nationwide. But the Obama administration argued that going to court after a violation doesn’t create the same deterrent because that costs too much and takes too much time.
With lawsuits as the only recourse, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the justices, “You’re never going to get at all these thousands of under-the-radar changes.”
The lawyer for Shelby County, Ala., which brought the challenge, implored the justices to lift the “stigma of prior restraint.”
Section 5 covers Texas and eight other states, mostly in the South: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. Parts of six other states are also covered: California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Dakota and South Dakota. (Full list here.)
Jurisdictions can apply for bailout once they show they have not engaged in discrimination for 10 years, and a number have done so. The Justice Department has regularly found violations in Texas, however. Each violation resets the 10-year clock.
Since Texas came under the Voting Rights Act in 1975 for discrimination against Latino voters, Section 5 has been invoked to block more than 200 changes to election procedure.
The provision has been used to block gerrymandered political maps each of the last four decades. Last summer, a federal court made yet another such finding, days before another court blocked Texas’ strict new voter ID law, finding unanimously that it would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor.”
Critics say the law would have left 795,000 registered voters without an acceptable ID.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argued in a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Shelby County that federal oversight thwarts legitimate state policy-making. He alleged “abusive and heavy-handed tactics” but the Obama Justice Department.
Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act in 2006 for 25 years with support from lawmakers in most every covered jurisdiction. The votes were overwhelming: 98-0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House. President George W. Bush signed the extension into law.
At oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia brushed aside the significance of the lopsided congressional votes, calling it natural for politicians to avoid offending constituents. He left little mystery about his sympathies, calling the Voting Rights Act “the perpetuation of racial entitlement” – a comment the Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights activist, called “the height of insult.”
The Supreme Court all but invited a challenge to Section 5 in a case decided three years ago. That case involved a small utility district in northwest Austin that had no history of racial discrimination. With support from all but one justice, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that the time was nearing for the court to revisit formulas used to decide which states get extra federal scrutiny.
Shelby County, near Birmingham, has lost more than 240 discrimination cases. For minority advocates, that made it a poster child for why preclearance is needed.