Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (1965)

Many of you may not know, but the Supreme Court is hearing a case next Wednesday (February 27th) to discuss the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The case is derived from Shelby County, Alabama, and is a concern due to redistricting lines drawn to reflect race, or false addressed provided by voters. Section 5 essentially states that 9 states, and parts of 7 others, must report changes made to voter registration requirements, poll locations, etc to Washington before making changes. Essentially, the state must receive pre-clearance before altering voting practices, no matter how subtle the changes may be. Here is a short piece I did for Law and Social Change. Hopefully this will spark the attention of a few people and create interest in the case being heard next week!

The Voting Rights of 1965 ensures that everyone (regardless of race) has the right to vote. The right to vote is essential to democratic participation and government involvement. However, currently, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being challenged in the Supreme Court this term. The current question being considered is whether or not Section 5 is constitutional in terms of renewal. The section essentially makes 9 states (and parts of 7 others) report any changes in voting laws that might make voting more difficult for African Americans. Historically, the states that must report their changes to Washington participated in voting laws and regulations that prevented the black vote, no matter how subtle the changes may be. By having the state’s actions reviewed by a higher authority, racial fueled reasons for altering voting laws could be prevented and monitored for illegality. The case is supported by interest groups such as Project on Fair Representation and DonorsTrust (Greenhouse 2011).

            Personally, I believe that the Voting Rights Act is needed just as much today as it was in 1965. Although surface attitudes have shifted to represent unbiased opinions and racism is openly ousted and rejected by many groups and Americans, subtle laws and regulations often go un-noticed. In my opinion, while the public is sleeping, Washington is at work, meaning that we might not even notice voter laws around us that could negatively affect our neighbors. In the previous Presidential election, voter fraud and registration issues were a critical part of the media for quite a while. For example, many states adopted stricter voter registration laws prior to the election. These laws required things such as photo ID’s as a pre-requisite for registration. The problem is that minorities are often disproportionately affected by these laws because they are less likely to have a photo ID, due to State controlled operations such as the DMV (Lee 2012). [JMcD1] Although it was not an assigned reading for the whole class, Michelle Alexander’s book “The New Jim Crow” really altered my views on what is really going on when it comes to minority vote. When photo ID’s are available and every other qualification is met, many minorities still cannot vote due to their felon status. I believe that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act will always be needed. If a large interest group can swoop in and provide millions of dollars to fight against a Section of the VRA, think about what their money can do when no such Act is in place.

Other Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/voter-id-laws-minorities_n_1878893.html

---