Supreme Court to mull Voting Rights Act

Voters cast their ballots in a polling station at the Holiday Park Senior Center on Nov. 6, 2012 in Wheaton, Md. / MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court agreed to consider getting rid of a law that requires states with have a history of discrimination to get approval from the government before changing any of their voting procedures.

Acting three days after the election, the justices agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to the part of the landmark Voting Rights Act, which has affected all or parts of 16 states since the 1960s.

The issue came to light this past election when the Justice Department blocked Texas from enforcing a new law called S.B. 14 that would require voters to show photo identification before casting their ballot. The chief of the Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez, wrote on the behalf of Attorney General Holder saying that Hispanic voters were more likely to lack to proper identification compared to non-Hispanic voters.

• Justice Dept blocks Texas voter ID law
• Supreme Court to decide on police-collected DNA samples

The original appeal from Shelby County, Ala., near Birmingham, says state and local governments covered by the law have made significant progress and no longer should be forced to live under oversight from Washington.

The high court considered the same issue three years ago but sidestepped what Chief Justice John Roberts then called "a difficult constitutional question."

Since then, Congress has not addressed potential problems identified by the court. Meanwhile, the law's opponents sensed its vulnerability and filed several new lawsuits.

Addressing those challenges, lower courts have concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight.

The justices said they will examine whether the formula under which states are covered is outdated because it relies on data that is now 40 years old. By some measures, states covered by the law are outperforming some that were not.

Tuesday's election results also provide an interesting backdrop for the court's action. Americans re-elected Barack Obama, the nation's first African-American president. Exit polls across the country indicated Obama won more than 70 percent of Hispanics and more than 90 percent of blacks. In Alabama, however, exit polls showed Obama won only about 15 percent of the state's white voters. In neighboring Mississippi, the numbers were even smaller, at 10 percent, exit polling found.

The case probably will be argued in February or March, with a decision expected by late June.

The advance approval, or preclearance requirement, was adopted in the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to give federal officials a potent tool to defeat persistent efforts to keep blacks from voting.

The provision was a huge success, and Congress periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent occasion was in 2006, when a Republican-led Congress overwhelmingly approved and President George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., a lawmaker who is pushing for the law to be repealed, previously said that renewing the law back in 2009 sent the message "that states with voting problems 40 years ago can simply never be forgiven."

• House Renews Voting Rights Act

The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan and New Hampshire. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaskan Natives and Hispanics.

Play Video

Voting Rights Act Renewed

Before these locations can change their voting rules, they must get approval either from the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division or from the federal district court in Washington that the new rules won't discriminate.

Congress compiled a 15,000-page record and documented hundreds of instances of apparent voting discrimination in the states covered by the law dating to 1982, the last time it had been extended.

Six of the affected states, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas, are backing Shelby county's appeal.

In 2009, Roberts indicated the court was troubled about the ongoing need for a law in the face of dramatically improved conditions, including increased minority voter registration and turnout rates. Roberts attributed part of the change to the law itself. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements," he said.

Jurisdictions required to obtain preclearance were chosen based on whether they had a test restricting the opportunity to register or vote and whether they had a voter registration or turnout rate below 50 percent.

A divided panel of federal appeals court judges in Washington said that the age of the information being used is less important than whether it helps identify jurisdictions with the worst discrimination problems.

[ajain31]

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone's constitutional rights. We not only need to keep the protections in the current Voting Rights Act, it should be expanded. The numerous despicable attempts to restrict voting made during the last election cycle are proof of that. Anyone who truly believes the VRA is obsolete needs to recognize, given last years voter suppression efforts, the Jim Crowe era is biding its time, lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to rear its head once again. The entire nation will speak against it because the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is not about political parties; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is about individual rights protection. Bank on it! it is time to review; the Supreme Court's "entitlements" as, it is no longer acting as an unbiased institution and that, your magistrates , can be amended. get up and do your job or we will make it happen! count on it! Now Even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights law on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end's on this ? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ? Well I will tell you what I think. I think there may be a dozen or two, man and women in America that have the means to buy the power it wants to call all shots in this Country. The only way they can obtain this right now is get the people they went in office. To buy them so to say. But they know they can be stopped at the voting polls.They know the more that get out and vote there chances are reduced substantially. George Will knows this and should be ashamed. He say 47 years old. Is that old ? I don't think so. Look at the constitution, at that II Amendment a lot older right. SS, Medicare, still very new in the big picture. But look at who wants to change them. Not working men and women, no the big bosses. They do not like to mach payments that is what this is all about. They did not like it back in the 1930s and they do not like it now. So Americans do not be fooled and all of you older people that now have this little benefit fight like h--- to keep it just as it is. It just might be all there is between eating and striving !! The argument is that VRA is discriminatory against Southern states to require them but not other states to seek preclearance for voting laws; I actually agree. The Voting Rights Act should require *all* states to seek preclearance. After what we've seen the GOP try to pass in states all across the nation prior to the last election, I see no reason this safeguard against voter suppression should be limited to just Southern states.

All the republicans crapping about The Voting Rights Act (VRA) on this board and the likes of you in the REPUBLICAN House should move aside in 2014 because the REPUBLICANS are the crux of the problem. President Obama won the elections of 2008 AND 2012 fair and square but the REPUBLICANS are not allowing him to govern through their rule of RECORD number of filibusters in the Senate and the HOUSE of REPUBLICANS has achieved nothing since it came to power in 2010. In 2014 its the REPUBLICAN's time to go and let OBAMA our democratically elected PRESIDENT rule the country and leave a legacy behind like the achievements of the 2008-2010 years when DEMOCRATS had the House Senate and the Presidency. We want the obstructionist REPUBLICANS out of the way in 2014. We want our House and Senate back in the DEMOCRATIC hands so we can govern and achieve something. All these doomsday fiscal deadlines that REPUBLICANS keep pushing on the country will haunt them in 2014!! Mark my words. March 4th 2013. Vote Democratic always!

"The BIBLE", the mini-series on HISTORY channel starting 3/3/13 Sundays at 7pm CT coming from Mark Burnett has got to be really good. It is on HISTORY Channel starting on 3/3/13 on Sundays 7 pm CT Channel 55 on TWC Time Warner Cable. Check out the latest Bible trailer by going here: http://histv.co/XZmj4s What are you most looking forward to watching in the series premiere on 3.3.13 at 8/7c? On HISTORY channel 55 on Time Warner Cable (TWC).

[nb12345]

While their at it, how about this novel idea..., only citizens can vote??? Gee, who would have thought of that... Pathetic.

[gtttrades]

What a contrast. I live in Delaware where the state ran numerous commercials urging people to vote and showing people how easy it is to vote, probably less than three minutes. Contrast that with the state of Florida, where Gov. Scott did everything in his power to deny voting to many of Florida residents. I hope the residents of Florida don't forget this.

[cubscout09]

Chuck, You are ill-informed.

Scott's administration denied voting rights to a number of servicemen who were serving in combat. Scott's Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, resigned, not because he disagreed with voter suppression, but because he thought that Scott was going too far.

[Filmguy870]

Gov. Scott is a criminal...simple as that.

[phwtb100]

The chief of the Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez, wrote on the behalf of Attorney General Holder saying that Hispanic voters were more likely to lack to proper identification compared to non-Hispanic voters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Only the ILLEGAL ones!! And they shouldn't be voting to start with!

This is crap! STATES HAVE the power and right to govern themselves and they DID HAVE that power until the Democrats went completely stupid!

[Solarrays247]

Did you always have this propensity for lying and misinforming, Chuck766, or is this a recent development for you?

[grumpas]

The Republican's proved this last election they can not be trusted to do the right thing!!! We need to strengthen the existing laws not eliminate them. It shouldn't be happening in this country people indulging in such shameful behavior as Rick Scott in Florida displayed. People waiting more than 8 hours is utterly disgusting. It took them until 1:30 the next morning to get everyone who wanted to vote handled. This should be sending the voters in Florida a message loud and clear. The Republican's can't be trusted anywhere near an election. They sc*** it up every time!!! That's why I refuse to vote Republican anymore until they clean up their party.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 4:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."

Like it or not, fair or not, evenly applied or not, this is a power expressly given to Congress. Congress can for any reason at any time pass laws to make or change the regulations for electing senators and representatives in any or all states. What legal theory would trump the plain language of the Constitution?

[sandiegopete]

I agree. However, the current Supreme Court majority seems more interested in issuing rulings consistent with their political beliefs rather than the Constitution.

[sandiegopete]

Actually, there may be a due process issue.

[rayward73446]

The old white party are at it again, trying to block black and Hispanic voters from the polls, while trying to make an end run on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 using the SCOTUS.

The problems addressed in the Voting Rights Act are still going on today, just look at what republican governors and state legislatures have been doing to these voters in a state by state campaign against non-existent voter fraud, Most all of these states are republican strongholds. The republicans in congress have tried to kill any action on a new Voting Rights Act for many years because they are part of the problem. You can look to how they treated President Obama over the last 3 1/2 years to see how racist they are, they openly stated that their goal was to make Obama a one term president, they even stopped doing the peoples work for 4 whole years to try to prove their point.

The worst congress in history became so because of the republican's goal to block Obama. This was the first time that any congress has ever acted so out of character, against the needs of the country and openly followed through on their promise to do everything in their power to make Obama fail. This is not racism by the GOP, pure and simple. No, I'm not black, I live in the south, and I have seen Racism here in great abundance this year.

[kbbpll]

I'm a little surprised federal law doesn't cover all 50 states. People waiting 7 hours in FL is a big example, but my relatives in Arlington VA also waited nearly 2 hours. There's no excuse for this. And those thousands of absentee ballots in FL that showed up just before the deadline - who is checking what other states those people voted in? I had a guy (Republican) voting absentee from my address for 10 years before I finally got a prosecutor to go after him. There needs to be national standards and a national voter database.

[FP1970]

The Voting Rights Act was obviously passed with good intentions, namely to make sure that black American citizens in the south can get to cast their vote. All well and good but it's obvious that today, it's being abused by Democrats for the purpose of getting as many illegal aliens voting as possible. What other country would ever tolearate a massive block of hostile foreigners voting in its elections? Mexico certainly wouldn't.

[aintfakin]

load of manure
interesting that Alabama is spearheading this effort

[tryingtodogoodwork]

FP1970, even you don't believe anything you've written in your post. Utterly disingenuous tripe.

[Solarrays247]

Not everything has changed for the better, if this recent election season is to serve as an example. The many different actions and attempts of voter suppression that occurred should serve as a wake up call. The United States sits on a world stage, and we presented a shameful example of how a free and honest electoral system should be run. Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, especially: Shame on some of your elected government officials, who are supposed to represent ALL citizens. I never dreamed back in 1965 that some of our minority citizens would still be facing something like this in 2012.