High Court Clashes Over Voting Rights Case

Justices Weigh Provision That Calls For Greater Scrutiny Of Elections In States With History Of Discrimination

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court's conservative justices led a sustained attack Wednesday on a key element of the Voting Rights Act, questioning whether one-time bastions of segregation still should be held to account for past discrimination.

The justices who were skeptical of that part of the voting rights law included Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose views are likely to prevail on the closely divided court. He tends to side with his more conservative colleagues on matters of race.

On the other side, the liberal justices defended Congress' decision to keep the law in place to prevent ongoing discrimination.

The tenor of the quick-paced argument suggested that there could be a court majority to strike down the provision of the voting rights law that has been the Justice Department's main enforcement tool against discriminatory changes in voting since the law was enacted in 1965. It opened elections to millions of blacks and other minorities.

The law requires all or parts of 16 states, mainly in the South, with a history of discrimination in voting to get approval in advance of making changes in the way elections are conducted. The idea behind it is to prevent discriminatory measures from being put in place.

The court is being asked by a small Texas utility district to strike down the extension as an unconstitutional intrusion into the domain of state and local governments that have made substantial progress since the era of Jim Crow and government-sponsored discrimination.

Kennedy acknowledged that the provision has been successful in rooting out discrimination in voting over the past 44 years. But times have changed, he said, questioning Congress' judgment in 2006 that it was needed for another 25 years.

"Democracy was a shambles," Kennedy said of the era when the law first was enacted. "That's not true anymore."

When Justice Department lawyer Neal Katyal pointed out that the high court has upheld previous extensions of the law, Justice Antonin Scalia dismissively replied, "A long time ago."

At another point, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, "At what point does that history ... stop justifying action with respect to some jurisdictions?"

Katyal did not specifically answer that question. But he said, "After 16,000 pages of testimony, 21 different hearings over months, Congress looked at the evidence and determined that their work was not done."

Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also noted that by some measures of racial disparity, states not required to submit election changes fare worse than those with a history of discrimination.

The court's liberal justices said Congress pointed out that instances of voting discrimination occur more often in the states covered by the portion of the voting rights law that is under challenge.

"I don't understand with a record like that how you can maintain ... that things have radically changed," Justice David Souter said, acknowledging that there has been progress.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to the "second-generation discrimination" that Congress was aiming to stop. "You start with the blatant overt discrimination, and then in time people recognize...that won't go any more, so the discrimination becomes more subtle, less easy to smoke out," Ginsburg said. "But it doesn't go from blatant overt discrimination to everything is equal."

The Obama administration and civil rights groups also argued that Congress was well within its power to renew the law.

President Barack Obama's election did not come up in court Wednesday, although both sides used it in their briefs.

Outside the court, more than 100 NAACP members wearing yellow rain slickers, jackets and hats sang and chanted while the justices were hearing the case inside.

Betty Johnson, 62, of Elkton, Md., said, "Just because we have an African-American president doesn't mean that people's voting rights can't be taken away."

Republicans controlled Congress and the White House in 2006. If the court strikes down a portion of the voting rights law, Democrats now in the majority are likely to write a new measure, although they could be restricted by what the court says, according to election law expert Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The justices also could find a way out of the case without ruling one way or the other on the constitutional issue. They could determine that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Austin, Texas, can opt out of the advance approval requirement, although a lower federal court found it could not.

For the only time this term, the justices made available audio recordings immediately after the arguments.

A decision should come by the end of June.

The case is Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, 08-322.

Last month, the Court ruled that electoral districts must have a majority of African-Americans or other minorities to be protected by a provision of the Voting Rights Act.

The 5-4 decision, with the court's conservatives in the majority, could make it harder for southern Democrats to draw friendly boundaries after the 2010 Census.

[butterfly462]

butterfly462 - So what country are you from? Cause in this country only Citizens have the right to vote - by our constitution or have you read that document?

According to your comments as long as people come into our country legally they should have the right to control what happens here. NO !
Posted by Scooter68 at 3:45 PM : Apr 29, 2009

Ok, geesh. I am from this country, OK. Just as American as you. I made a mistake when I answered that question. I have read the Constitution. No, I do not think non-citizens should vote. When I read the question I had in my head someone who was from another country and was here legally and a citizen.

I'd say thanks for pointing that out, but you went to assuming I must not be American or be educated to what the U.S. Constitution says instead of possibly thinking I made a mistake.

Scooter68 Anything else you take issue with?

[tangouniforn]

saturn05
I could not agree more.

[tangouniforn]

old poet
Like you I have lived in many states. From ocean to ocean and border to border. And I have never witnessed raceism such as I have encountered in the south. Not long after I moved to Missouri, I had a black engineer working for me. One day we had some vendors meeting with us about a black box they were building for us. They asked this engineer and me to go to lunch with them. I informed the black engineer that we had been asked to go to lunch with the visitors. He asked me if the restaurant would serve him. This shocked me that he would have to ask. I told him that I did not know, but if they asked him to leave, then we both would leave. I go into the south on occasion, and among the whites, little has changed. The whites are a little more discrete about to whom they open up. But raceism is still there.

[saturn05]

Whether or not this voting rights issue is right or wrong, I think it should either be all of the states or none. The discrimination starts there.

[butterfly462]

Forget about racism for a moment.
Voting Rights is an interesting subject. We need to ask some fundamental questions about Voting Rights, like:

1. If you are on Public Assistance, should you be allowed to vote?
Answer: YES

2. If you did not file a tax return, should you be allowed to vote?
Answer: YES

3. Should ballots be English only?
Answer: WHO CARES?

4. If you don't own a business or property, should you be allowed to vote?
Answer: YES

5. Should legal aliens be allowed to vote?
Answer: YES

6. Should the homeless be allowed to vote?
Answer:YES

7. Should felons be allowed to vote?
Answer: After they have served their sentences. YES

8. If you are an illegal immigrant, but have an SSN and a job, should you be allowed to vote?
Answer: NO

9. If your IQ is under 90, should you be allowed to vote.
Answer: YES

10. Should anyone that can fog a mirror be allowed to vote?
Answer: YES

11. Should Republicans be allowed to vote?
Answer: YES

12. Should White people with fish hooks in the bills of their caps be allowed to vote?
Answer:YES

13. Should all White folk only get half a vote?
Answer: NO

14. If you do NOT have a High School Diploma or GED, should you be allowed to vote?
Answer: YES


Copy and paste your answers...just for fun!

Just a few questions for y'all.
Posted by BerkeleySkirtLifter at 2:21 PM : Apr 29, 2009

[nikosk11]

You are an idiot. Europeans are not singled out for racist treatment.

I like what comedian Chris Rock said "There are no white people who would change places with me, and I'm rich."

I think that puts the race situation in perspective.
Posted by johndevinejr at 12:35 PM : Apr 29, 2009
+ report abuse + permalink

You are missing the whole point of he post. Do you read English?

[butterfly462]

Check out the odd re-districting done under the Republican legislators in Texas around 2003-2004 and tell me that Texas does not need to keep voting rights protection for minorities on the books. I never heard or witnessed such racism before in my life until this last election. There is some progress even in the south with reagrds to racism but it is still far behind where it should be. The racism was more underlying before the election and it was brought out into the light since the election. NO, NO AND H*LL NO!!!! Do not let Texas or any other southern state eliminate any voting rights laws yet. The major cities have made progress, but little towns such as the one in this article have not, not ,matter what anyone says. Oh, and my opinion does not come from a minority perspective. I am a white single mother of one so I am not discriminated against, but I have some African American friends and they are not looked at equally by many in this state.

[ricmarc2001]

WE NEED TO BOOT ALL THE CONSERVATIVE CATHOLICS OFF OF THE COURT. STARTING WITH SCALIA.

[sdemaggie]

It is a big mistake to remove the protection afforded to minorities (majorities) in these southern bations of hate. The only instrument that is affective in curbing the plantation menatlity of the south is the law at a Federal level. Don't be fooled, the south requires Federal supervision.

[weedapeapl]

The supreme court lost credibility when it appointed bush president.
Posted by rightaboutit at 1:46 PM : Apr 29, 2009

In other words, as long as the Supreme Court decisions supported your political agenda, they had credibility.

But the highest court in the land lost credibility the first time they did something you disagreed with.

Wow, nice respect for the rule of law and justice. Why do you hate the USA so much?