Opinion

The Great Debate

GOP v. Voting Rights Act

By William Yeomans
January 10, 2013

The Republican Party is in danger of reaping what it has sown.

Much has been written about the GOP’s problem with minority voters.  Quite simply, the party has managed to alienate every nonwhite constituency in the nation.

This is not an accidental or sudden phenomenon. Ever since Republicans chose almost 50 years ago to pursue a Southern strategy, to embrace and promote white voters’ opposition to civil rights, the party has been on a path toward self-segregation.

Successive Republican administrations have pursued agendas that included retreating on civil rights enforcement and opposing government programs that increase minority opportunity. That steady progression culminated in Mitt Romney’s disastrous showing among African-American, Latino and Asian voters.

Now, even as Republican leaders are openly lamenting that the party is doomed unless it can reverse its downward spiral with minority voters, the Supreme Court has announced that it would hear Shelby County v. Holder next month — the latest challenge to the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Clear-eyed GOP strategists must have cringed with recognition that the five Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices are threatening to put the final nail in the party’s coffin.

Put bluntly, if the court’s Republican majority strikes down this recently reauthorized, core provision of the Voting Rights Act – the most effective and revered of all civil rights statutes — the backlash will likely ensure that Republican presidential candidates will struggle for a generation to win more than a handful of minority votes. The specter of justices appointed by the Republican Party joining in the effort to suppress minority votes will likely ignite a new movement among minorities and their allies to protect the franchise against GOP attack.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that jurisdictions with a record of voting transgressions subjected the law must obtain pre-clearance for any change in election rules  from either the Justice Department or a three-judge court in Washington, D.C. This requirement grew out of the inability of litigation to address many jurisdictions’ determined efforts to prevent African-Americans from voting. The Justice Department’s best attempts in suing to enforce the 15th Amendment, which prohibits denial of the vote based on race, proved inadequate.

Because of local jurisdictions’ lack of cooperation and, in some instances, the recalcitrance of racist judges, individual cases proved time-consuming and expensive to pursue. Frustratingly, even when plaintiffs won an order blocking one tactic for disenfranchisement, a jurisdiction could just adopt a new method — requiring a fresh round of litigation.

Only after years of litigation had produced unsatisfactory results and the heroic efforts of civil rights activists and ordinary citizens had exposed massive injustice did Congress finally step forward. Pushed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Section 5 has proven so successful, its opponents now argue, that its own achievements should kill it. They contend that conditions in the jurisdictions subject to the law have changed — in part because of the act’s accomplishments — making the federal oversight imposed by Section 5 no longer warranted. Congress, however, made extensive findings to the contrary in 2006 and reauthorized Section 5 for 25 years by unanimous vote in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives.

Indeed, as Judge David S. Tatel’s opinion for the D.C. Circuit Court in Shelby County amply demonstrates, Congress acted well within its power in reauthorizing Section 5. The ruling noted that Congress, examining the record only since 1982, acted on the basis of 626 attorney general objections blocking discriminatory changes; more than 800 proposed voting changes that were withdrawn or modified after the Justice Department requested more information before it would approve them; 653 successful cases under Section 2 of the act, which allows lawsuits to redress discrimination; tens of thousands of election observers being sent to covered jurisdictions; 105 successful Section 5 enforcement actions; 25 unsuccessful suits seeking approval of voting changes, and the invisible deterrent effect, which can restrain jurisdictions that know their election practices must survive Section 5 review.

Faced with this overwhelming evidence that Section 5 is still justified in the jurisdictions still subject to it, opponents are making a second argument. Some jurisdictions, they point out, that are not covered by Section 5 behave just as badly — revealing the imprecision of the section’s coverage formula. The formula captures jurisdictions that administered a discriminatory device (such as a literacy test) and where registration or turnout in the presidential elections of 1964, 1968, or 1972 fell below 50 percent. There was never any magic to the formula, which was reverse-engineered to capture the worst offenders.

The formula was always under-inclusive. It fails, for example, to include such states as Arkansas, Tennessee and Oklahoma, where racial discrimination was no stranger. It was also over-inclusive, capturing jurisdictions where voting discrimination was not as severe. That is why Congress built into the act a bailout provision, which allows jurisdictions that have maintained clean records for 10 years to go to court to end federal oversight. Dozens of jurisdictions have done just that.

It is true that several states not covered by Section 5 have been hotbeds of voting law controversy in recent cycles – notably Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (only five counties are covered). The correct response to this misbehavior, however, is not to release the covered jurisdictions. It is to ensure adequate legal remedies against abuses in these others as well.

Despite Congress’s recent reauthorization of Section 5, unanimous recognition of its success, and a voluminous record compiled by Congress in support of its continued necessity, the Republican appointees to the court appear eager to throw it out. In 2009, these justices put it in their sights – by accepting the case NAMUDNO v. Holder — but then failed to pull the trigger. They instead decided the matter through creative statutory interpretation. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion, however, gratuitously expressed serious concern about Section 5’s constitutionality and made it clear that the court would not likely hold its fire a second time.

Shelby County presents that second time.

The Republican Party planted the seeds of this judicial disaster decades ago. Building on the resentment of white Southerners toward Brown v. Board of Education and the demise of Jim Crow, Richard M. Nixon implemented his Southern strategy to appeal to angry white voters. He then fed this beast by appointing conservative judges who would reverse civil rights progress.

President Ronald Reagan identified conservative ideologues for the bench who could be counted on to reject effective civil rights enforcement. He elevated Associate Justice William Rehnquist to chief justice and then tried to push through confirmation of the ultra-conservative Robert Bork, who had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This proved too much for the Senate.

Reagan also appointed Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Both have voted consistently against minority civil rights plaintiffs, while showing enthusiastic support for whites challenging civil rights remedies. President George H.W. Bush continued this pattern when he appointed Clarence Thomas, age 41, to the court. Thomas was not chosen on the basis of his experience or distinction as a legal thinker, but because of his race and conservative ideology — which featured strong opposition to civil rights remedies.

President George W. Bush’s appointments of Roberts and Samuel Alito, who cut their teeth as attorneys in Reagan’s Justice Department, completed this decades-long Republican effort to create a solid right-wing majority on the Supreme Court that would consistently oppose minorities’ civil rights claims.

With that project now complete, the Republican appointees are poised to take on the Voting Rights Act.

While forces hostile to the act spent the years since the 2006 reauthorization trying to convince the public that Section 5 is no longer necessary, the two years leading to the 2012 election undermined their work. Following strong GOP gains in the 2010 election, Republican-led statehouses across the nation launched efforts to suppress minority voting by restricting early voting, blocking voting on Sunday, imposing draconian registration requirements, purging voting lists and passing photo ID requirements.

Early post-election accounts suggest that these noxious tactics backfired and actually increased minority enthusiasm and turnout in the affected jurisdictions.

These suppression efforts should make it far harder for opponents of Section 5 to argue that it is no longer necessary. Fortunately, Section 5 blocked photo identification laws enacted by South Carolina and Texas and limited the restrictions on early voting adopted by Florida. A three-judge court relied on Section 5 to block Texas’ most recent redistricting plans for its congressional, senate and state house seats — finding that the legislature acted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of race. Section 5 should also prevent Alabama and Mississippi from implementing recently authorized photo identification laws.

The tw0 years since the 2010 midterm election present overwhelming evidence that covered jurisdictions are not yet ready to conduct elections without federal supervision.

Days after Romney was humbled by a historic lack of minority support, the Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices plunged ahead — agreeing to review Section 5 and threatening to make it significantly more difficult for the Republican Party to improve its standing with minority voters.

Just as Romney’s defeat reflected decades of Republican policy hostile to the interests of minorities, the court’s recent decision to hear Shelby County reflects decades of effort to pack the court with right-wing ideologues who will oppose minority interests.

The Republicans’ best hope to avoid further alienating minority voters lies in Kennedy, the Republican-appointed justice most likely to break with his conservative colleagues. All eyes will be on him as he decides whether his legacy will include being the justice whose vote brought down America’s most effective civil rights law.

His vote may well determine the prospects of the Republican Party for years to come – and the health of our democracy.

 

PHOTO (Top): The Supreme Court building in Washington, May 20, 2009. REUTERS/Molly Riley

PHOTO (Insert 1): Chief Justice John Roberts   REUTERS/Larry Downing

PHOTO (Insert 2): President Lyndon B. Johnson talking with Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.  Wikipedia/Commons

PHOTO (Insert 3): President Richard M. Nixon orchestrated the Southern strategy to appeal to Southern white voters angered over passage of the Voting Rights Act.

PHOTO (Insert 4): Justice Anthony Kennedy  REUTERS/Larry Downing

Comments
10 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Obviously this plan has been in the works since the Tea Party took over the house,and the republicans loaded the Supreme Court.What they didn’t figure is that the people would fight so strongly to vote for their choice.

And if the Supreme Court strikes down section 5, watch what happens.In rural areas they will move the pooling places so far away from area where people of color live that they won’t be able to vote.

The states with the Tea Party govenors will come up with the newest versions of Jim Crow,or any other method to restrict people of color.

Posted by agencyRN | Report as abusive
 

If we really want the people aka: the Public, to have an actual vote in our government, then we must have term limits for congress and campaign finance reform. Otherwise they are just fooling you.
Personally, I don’t believe the public should vote. That was a great idea in the past centuries where social groups were smaller and more like minded. Since we are not, we are diversified and more fragmented, we should look at our electoral college system again as a new base.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive
 

I believe we need to amend the voting rights act and call for minimum standards for polling access and hours; automatically registering people to vote when they become 18; the state owning the vote counting, not these consultants; and publicly funded elections, and the outlawing of all political ads, supplying instead a public web site and printed matter explaining candidate positions and their voting records,if applicable, as well as their entire resume. I don’t have a problem with voter ID laws but the state should provide ID proactively instead of making them exceedingly difficult to procure; and the onus should shift to the state to provide ID and registration and back up verifications, or they must allow the voter to vote unless they can prove someone ineligible. Maybe after another Citizen United-like disaster courtesy of The Supremes, we will demand our right to easily cast our votes, and require our legislatures to encode our voting rights and stop playing little boy games.

Posted by sylvan | Report as abusive
 

Interestingly, I think the motivation for the Republicans no longer boils down to race (“we don’t want blacks or Hispanics to vote”), but politics (“we don’t want Democrats to vote”). I guess perhaps this is some measure of progress. But the more Republicans try to prevent poor people from voting (which is really what these tactics are about — the minority aspect of them is just a side-effect), the more minorities will avoid voting for them, and the stronger will be Republican motivation to suppress voting rights for these groups.

It was inspiring to see the lengths that people went to to vote in 2012, in spite of the choice between the guy who is only an enabler of elites versus the guy who is a full-fledged member.

@sylvan, I agree with you except would add that voting machines should also be held to national standards, and one of those standards should be a paper trail that would enable a verifiable manual recount. It all boils down to this question: do we actually want to know the will of the people, or do we merely want to make it look like we do?

Posted by Sanity-Monger | Report as abusive
 

as long as the wealthy and large corporations have the gop by the short hairs we will see continued voter suppression. therefore the sooner the gop returns to their historical minority ankle biting position and more normal supreme court justices are appointed the better.

Posted by jcfl | Report as abusive
 

Unfortunately, what the article presents is a true picture of the state of affairs. I would add as a footnote that the Republicans only hold sway in the House of Representatives due to gerrymandering – they lost the popular vote for the House of Representatives as well as the Senate and Presidency. To take Texas as an example, the shape of the districts is completely absurd, done with the explicit intent of reducing minority representation.

Any rejection of the Voting Rights Act will be the doing of the Republican party, e.g. Republicans on the Supreme Court voting on party lines rather than on the law.

Posted by QuietThinker | Report as abusive
 

Thanks Sanity-Monger. I completely concur with your additions to list of needed national voting standards. If we had had proof of votes in 2000, we could have avoided the dark years of W. Now, will the House will consider any of our well-considered proposals to make voting uniformly fair? Not if they want to keep their jobs.

Posted by sylvan | Report as abusive
 

Any idea that republicans engage in voter suppression is so wrong and,in truth, indicates projection. Democrates not Republicans are the party of voter fraud.

Voting is a privalege and a duty. Any voter should be proud to show proof of eligibility and not hold the franchise lightly.

The thought that, in order to vote, a person would need to be picked up at their door and bussed to the polling place or they would not put any effort into voting sickens me.

Just another example of the dumbing down of society and the continuing rise in irresponsible behavior.

Posted by germany3 | Report as abusive
 

Gee, Bill, race-bait much? What a long, irresponsible rant of name-calling and race-card-playing. You ought to be able to disagree with conservative Republicans without tarring them all as racists.

What’s ironic here is that the principal use to which Section 5 has long been put by people like Mr. Yeomans (in his days in the Justice Department’s civil rights division) is the creation of segregated and racially gerrymandered voting districts — a purpose quite at odds with the ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.

Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overtu rn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act

Posted by RogerClegg | Report as abusive
 

There will be no fallout from the end of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The decision will be handed down in June 2013 and will be forgotten by November 2014.

Posted by kramartini | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •