In the magazine this week, Jeffrey Toobin writes about Attorney General Eric Holder and his efforts to enforce the principles of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In the Shelby County v. Holder decision of June, 2013, the Supreme Court declared Section 4 of the Act unconstitutional by a vote of five to four, arguing, in essence, that the provision was no longer necessary nearly fifty years after the civil-rights era. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned the dissent, joined by the three other Democratic appointees to the Court.
Section 4 outlined a formula for identifying jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination. These places included many states in the South and various counties and townships scattered across the country. Under Section 5 of the Act, these places were required to receive “preclearance” from the federal government before making any changes to voting laws. Though the Supreme Court didn’t render an opinion on Section 5, striking down Section 4 rendered it punchless—without a coverage formula, there are no places that require preclearance.
Events since the Shelby decision show that we might still need Section 5. As the map above illustrates, in the months after the Supreme Court decision most of the states that were subject to preclearance have moved to restrict voting rights. Here’s an outline of what’s happened in those states, highlighted in orange on the map. Most of the new restrictive laws are similar—photo-I.D. laws, shortened early-voting periods, and the like. Such measures make voting more difficult, and, as voting-rights advocates argue, they disproportionately affect poor and minority voters.
In 2011, Alabama, home to the plaintiff Shelby County, approved a photo-I.D. law, but never submitted it for preclearance. After the Supreme Court decision, the state announced that it would go ahead with the law, which officially takes effect during this year’s federal primaries.
Section 5 only covered a handful of Florida counties, but the entire state was subject to preclearance. In 2012, Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, launched a program to purge the voter roll of non-citizens. The effort, which disproportionately targeted minorities, was ultimately abandoned under a storm of criticism. However, just a day after Shelby, Scott, who faces reëlection in 2014, made plans to renew the purge.
On the day of the Shelby decision, Mississippi’s Secretary of State announced plans to implement a photo-I.D. law in time for this year’s federal primaries.
North Carolina functioned much like Florida—Section 5 coverage for certain counties, but preclearance necessary for the entire state. Less than two months after Shelby, the state’s Republican-controlled government passed a sweeping bill that includes several new restrictive voting provisions. Among them are a photo-I.D. requirement, a shorter early-voting period, the end to same-day voter registration and pre-registration for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, and the end of straight party-ticket voting. The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit challenging the new voting provisions under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
South Carolina tried to enforce a photo-I.D. law in time for the 2012 elections, but a federal court blocked it in October, arguing that there was insufficient time to educate voters and officials. However, the court said that it could take effect in 2013. Immediately after Shelby, the state Attorney General issued a statement praising the Justices, and the photo-I.D. law was officially implemented in time for a September special election.
In 2012, a federal court rejected a Texas law requiring photo I.D. at the polls, ruling that it imposed “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor.” After the Shelby ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a candidate for governor in 2014, immediately enacted the law. As with North Carolina, the Justice Department has sued Texas.
Like Florida and North Carolina, only certain counties in Virginia were covered by Section 5. (Initially, the entire state was covered, but several counties had “bailed out” of preclearance for having a record of incident-free elections.) Nonetheless, the rest of the state was subject to preclearance. In 2012, the Justice Department approved a permissive new voter-I.D. law that accepted a wide variety of identification at the polls, including utility bills, bank statements, government checks, paychecks, and Social Security cards. But in early 2013, the state tightened the law, eliminating several I.D. options and imposing a strict photo requirement. The change was still pending preclearance before Shelby, but now seems likely to go ahead. The state has also started a voter-roll purge.
Original Article
Source: newyorker.com/
Author: THE NEW YORKER
Section 4 outlined a formula for identifying jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination. These places included many states in the South and various counties and townships scattered across the country. Under Section 5 of the Act, these places were required to receive “preclearance” from the federal government before making any changes to voting laws. Though the Supreme Court didn’t render an opinion on Section 5, striking down Section 4 rendered it punchless—without a coverage formula, there are no places that require preclearance.
Events since the Shelby decision show that we might still need Section 5. As the map above illustrates, in the months after the Supreme Court decision most of the states that were subject to preclearance have moved to restrict voting rights. Here’s an outline of what’s happened in those states, highlighted in orange on the map. Most of the new restrictive laws are similar—photo-I.D. laws, shortened early-voting periods, and the like. Such measures make voting more difficult, and, as voting-rights advocates argue, they disproportionately affect poor and minority voters.
In 2011, Alabama, home to the plaintiff Shelby County, approved a photo-I.D. law, but never submitted it for preclearance. After the Supreme Court decision, the state announced that it would go ahead with the law, which officially takes effect during this year’s federal primaries.
Section 5 only covered a handful of Florida counties, but the entire state was subject to preclearance. In 2012, Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, launched a program to purge the voter roll of non-citizens. The effort, which disproportionately targeted minorities, was ultimately abandoned under a storm of criticism. However, just a day after Shelby, Scott, who faces reëlection in 2014, made plans to renew the purge.
On the day of the Shelby decision, Mississippi’s Secretary of State announced plans to implement a photo-I.D. law in time for this year’s federal primaries.
North Carolina functioned much like Florida—Section 5 coverage for certain counties, but preclearance necessary for the entire state. Less than two months after Shelby, the state’s Republican-controlled government passed a sweeping bill that includes several new restrictive voting provisions. Among them are a photo-I.D. requirement, a shorter early-voting period, the end to same-day voter registration and pre-registration for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, and the end of straight party-ticket voting. The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit challenging the new voting provisions under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
South Carolina tried to enforce a photo-I.D. law in time for the 2012 elections, but a federal court blocked it in October, arguing that there was insufficient time to educate voters and officials. However, the court said that it could take effect in 2013. Immediately after Shelby, the state Attorney General issued a statement praising the Justices, and the photo-I.D. law was officially implemented in time for a September special election.
In 2012, a federal court rejected a Texas law requiring photo I.D. at the polls, ruling that it imposed “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor.” After the Shelby ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a candidate for governor in 2014, immediately enacted the law. As with North Carolina, the Justice Department has sued Texas.
Like Florida and North Carolina, only certain counties in Virginia were covered by Section 5. (Initially, the entire state was covered, but several counties had “bailed out” of preclearance for having a record of incident-free elections.) Nonetheless, the rest of the state was subject to preclearance. In 2012, the Justice Department approved a permissive new voter-I.D. law that accepted a wide variety of identification at the polls, including utility bills, bank statements, government checks, paychecks, and Social Security cards. But in early 2013, the state tightened the law, eliminating several I.D. options and imposing a strict photo requirement. The change was still pending preclearance before Shelby, but now seems likely to go ahead. The state has also started a voter-roll purge.
Original Article
Source: newyorker.com/
Author: THE NEW YORKER
No comments:
Post a Comment