Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act | U.S. Supreme Court News

Summary

The Supreme Court has struck down a key formula in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, effectively ending federal oversight of voting rules in areas with a history of racial discrimination. The decision, a 5-4 verdict, leaves it to Congress to devise a new formula, a task deemed unlikely given the current political divide. Critics argue this undermines the Act's ability to prevent discriminatory voting practices, while the majority opinion suggests times have changed and the formula is no longer relevant.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The Supreme Court has ruled on a significant case concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965, striking down the formula used to determine areas subject to federal oversight.
• 📊 The decision effectively ends special oversight for areas historically known for discriminating against minority voters, as the federal government will need to approve changes to voting rules in advance.
• 🔍 The court's ruling does not abolish the Voting Rights Act but neutralizes its enforcement mechanism by invalidating Section 4, which defines the coverage formula.
• 👥 The verdict was a 5-4 split, with Chief Justice Roberts and the conservative justices in the majority, and the liberal justices dissenting.
• 🎯 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, emphasized the question of who should decide on voting rights enforcement: the court or Congress.
• 🔄 The ruling suggests that times have changed and that the previously notorious areas for racial discrimination no longer justify the coverage formula.
• 📉 The impact of the decision may be the end of the Voting Rights Act as it is currently known, due to the difficulty of Congress reenacting a new formula given its current division.
• 🤔 The possibility of Congress reviving Section 4 and Section 5, which provides federal oversight, is considered unlikely due to the current political climate and ideological differences.
• 🏢 The majority opinion views the pre-clearance provision as an imposition on states' autonomy, while the minority argues for the necessity of federal power to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
• 📚 The Voting Rights Act still stands as federal law prohibiting discriminatory voting practices, but the federal government's preventive power has been curtailed.
• 🔄 The ruling reflects a shift in judicial interpretation regarding the balance between federal and state power in the context of voting rights enforcement.

Q & A

What was the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

The Supreme Court struck down the formula used by the government for determining which areas are subject to special federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, effectively ending that oversight.

What does the special federal oversight entail under the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Areas that have historically discriminated against minority voters are required to get approval in advance from the federal government before changing their voting rules.

What was the significance of the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act?

The decision is significant as it effectively neuters the entire Voting Rights Act, which was a key piece of civil rights legislation that helped to prevent disenfranchisement of minority voters.

What must Congress do in response to the Supreme Court's ruling?

Congress will need to go back and fix Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act by creating a new formula for determining which states should be covered by the Act.

What were the ideological divisions on the Supreme Court regarding this case?

The ruling was a 5-4 verdict, with Chief Justice Roberts and four fellow conservatives striking down the coverage formula, while the four more liberal members of the court dissented.

How did the dissenting justices view the Supreme Court's decision?

The dissenting justices, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, focused on the question of who should decide on the implementation of the 14th and 15th Amendments' powers, arguing it should be Congress, not the Court.

What is the practical impact of the Supreme Court's ruling on voting procedures?

The federal government's power to prevent discriminatory voting changes before they happen has been eliminated, potentially allowing jurisdictions to enact new suppressive measures without preclearance.

Why did Congress implement the preclearance requirement in the first place?

Congress implemented the preclearance requirement because many jurisdictions would devise new ways to suppress minority votes as soon as previous discriminatory practices were thrown out.

What was the Supreme Court's view on the relevance of the coverage formula today?

The majority view on the Supreme Court was that times have changed and there is no longer evidence justifying the formula, suggesting that places once notorious for racially discriminatory practices are no longer so.

Is there a chance that Congress could update the Voting Rights Act in response to the Supreme Court's ruling?

It is considered unlikely given the current composition of Congress, as the issue is framed as a question of federal versus state power, with the majority on the court viewing the preclearance provision as an imposition on states' autonomy.

What remains of the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court's ruling?

The substantive provisions of the Voting Rights Act still remain, meaning it is still a violation of federal law to impose discriminatory methods to disenfranchise voters.