Monday, July 6, 2020
Home News Fear of a Black (& Brown & Yellow) Electorate

Fear of a Black (& Brown & Yellow) Electorate

By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

“Throwing out pre-clearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Shelby County v. Holder, dissent.

“I believe that when politicians feel the heat, they see the light.” – Congressman Keith Elison (D-MN), on the possibility of getting a new Voting Rights Act law passed by this Congress.

“Make no mistake, the 2014 election started today.” – MSNBC’s Chris Hayes

On June 25, the Supreme Court struck the biggest blow against civil rights since Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, striking down a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional.

The next day, the court issued the most liberal gay rights decision ever, striking down the “Defense of Marriage Act” as unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. The federal government must now recognize state-recognized gay marriages as fully equal under law. Given rapidly-shifting public opinion, the defeat of DOMA was seen as inevitable.

The contrast between the two decisions could not have been sharper.

The court also narrowly ruled to let stand a lower court decision striking down Proposition 8’s ban on marriage equality in California, but did nothing to affect other state marriage laws.

“We have no power to decide this case,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, in dissent. “And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”

But he was dissenting from DOMA decision. He was perfectly fine with striking down the Voting Rights Act—even though that democratically adopted legislation was expressly authorized by the text of the 15th Amendment.

“So much for ‘originalism’ and ‘strict construction,’” said Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, citing two supposedly core principles of conservative jurisprudence. “The Supreme Court’s opinion in the Shelby County voting rights case is staggering and appalling in its disdain for the words and meaning of the Constitution – not to mention protection of the hallowed right to vote.

“Both the 14th and 15th Amendments state clearly that ‘Congress shall have the power to enforce’ voting rights and equal protection. Time and time again Congress has done so by reaffirming overwhelmingly the Voting Rights Act, including Sections 4 and 5; the last vote was a combined 488-33 or 94 percent of Congress.” (The Senate vote in 2006 was 98-0.) “But five of the Court’s justices have chosen to ignore the Constitution and Congress and substitute their own views for those granted the power in the Constitution. For jurists who allege to support judicial restraint, it’s hard to imagine a more activist (and disingenuous) decision than today’s.”

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, made strikingly similar points in her scathing dissent.

The Voting Rights Act has two key sections under which discriminatory voting practice may be struck down: Section 2, which allows lawsuits after the fact, and Section 5, which requires specific jurisdictions with invidious histories (mostly states and counties, primarily in the South) to obtain “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any changes to their voting laws or administrative practices—a much more robust form of protection.

Jurisdictions with 10 years of good behavior can opt-out of preclearance, but very few do so, as their overall records are not encouraging. A University of Michigan Law School study, which Congress considered in its 2006 re-authorization of the act, found that covered jurisdictions account for less than 25 percent of the country’s population, but accounted for 56 percent of successful Section 2 litigation. The per capita Section 2 success rate was almost four times the rate in non-covered jurisdictions. What’s more, this data obviously didn’t include all lawsuits that didn’t occur challenging practices that were preemptively struck down under Section 5 beforehand.

The conservative majority left both sections intact, but struck down Section 4, the part of the law that defines the covered jurisdictions to which Section 5 applies, arguing that the jurisdictions covered were based on data from 1965, and hence no longer constitutionally allowable. The majority simply ignored the Michigan study and all the other thousands of pages of documentation that Congress had considered in re-authorizing the law in 2006.

“Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices,” Chief John Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, ignoring the actual legislative record, which ran to more than 15,000 pages.

“The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shot back in her dissent. “Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if that were the whole story.”

Indeed, voter registration and turnout are irrelevant in the majority of cases which involve districting and redistricting issues which dilute the power of individual minority votes. Thus, in the majority’s view, a turnout of 100 percent in a racially gerrymandered district would be a sign of complete success, even if the one representative so elected were consistently out-voted by a white legislative majority elected by a smaller number of white voters.

“Whatever the device employed, this Court has long recognized that vote dilution, when adopted with a discriminatory purpose, cuts down the right to vote as certainly as denial of access to the ballot,” wrote Ginsburg on this point.

But not anymore, apparently.

“Without even identifying a standard of review, the Court dismissively brushes off arguments based on ‘data from the record … and declines to enter the “debat[e about] what [the] record shows…,” Ginsburg continued. “One would expect more from an opinion striking at the heart of the Nation’s signal piece of civil-rights legislation.”

But the majority’s refusal to look at the legislative record is but one of several fundamental flaws in their argument that Ginsburg highlighted.

“[B]y what right, given its usual restraint, does the Court even address Shelby County’s facial challenge to the VRA?” she asked, equally significantly.

A “facial challenge” means that a law is challenged as unconstitutional on its face, that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid,” as Ginsburg noted the court has previously held.

But the majority opinion and the facial challenge were a logical mismatch for each other. The majority did not strike down Section 5, as a facial challenge would have required, it merely said that Section 4’s formula was outdated, and that it could be replaced with a more up-to-date formula that would pass muster. Given the historical record, any such formula would certainly cover Shelby County, thus nullifying the facial challenge, as Ginsburg took pains to demonstrate. Ginsburg first cataloged some of Shelby County and Alabama’s recent history of voting rights violations.

“These recent episodes forcefully demonstrate that §5’s pre-clearance requirement is constitutional as applied to Alabama and its political subdivisions,” she concluded. “And under our case law, that conclusion should suffice to resolve this case.”

Former slave state officials wasted little time in announcing their intention to move forward with voter suppression laws that had previously been blocked under the Voting Rights Act—voter identification laws, early voting laws, even voter registration laws. But Democrats in Congress just as quickly announced their intention to pass an updated replacement for Section 4. Added to this past year’s electoral experience, when the response to voter suppression efforts lead to the highest minority voter turnout ever, the prospects are potentially disastrous for the GOP. In that respect, the conservatives’ over-reach in Shelby County may turn out to be less like Plessy, and more like an even more infamous case, Dred Scott, which tried to settle slavery as a political issue once and for all, but only ended up fueling the rush toward civil war and eventual emancipation.

Previous articleFringe Festival
Next articleForever Gifted and Black

2 COMMENTS

  1. […] The U.S. Supreme Court continues to send down split decisions on our civil rights. On the one hand, it overturned a portion of the 1960s Voting Rights Act, while on the other, they struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, commonly referred to as DOMA (For details, read Senior Editor Paul Rosenberg’s Fear of a Black (& Brown & Yellow) Electorate). […]

  2. […] The U.S. Supreme Court continues to send down split decisions on our civil rights. On the one hand, it overturned a portion of the 1960s Voting Rights Act, while on the other, they struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, commonly referred to as DOMA (For details, read Senior Editor Paul Rosenberg’s Fear of a Black (& Brown & Yellow) Electorate). […]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Most Popular

LA City Controller Suspends Salary of Councilmember Accused of Racketeering

Galperin moved to terminate all payments toward City Council Member José Huizar starting June 23.

RPV Announces New Director of Community Development

Rukavina joins the City from neighboring Palos Verdes Estates, where he served as director of community development and public works since 2016.

Temporary Eviction Moratorium and Rent Freeze Have Been Extended to July 31

The eviction moratorium will remain in place until July 31.

El Segundo High School Students Lead Protests Against Police Brutality

Independence Day weekend was different in El Segundo this year.  Normally known as a conservative 80% Caucasian bastion with the racist history...

Recent Comments

Michael S. Motta on Think: George Floyd
Thomas "HOUSE" Houchens on Think: George Floyd
Eliath Mena on Think: George Floyd
Deidre Powell on Think: George Floyd
Marcia Ladymgirl on Think: George Floyd
Jennifer L on Think: George Floyd
Carlos Fisher on Think: George Floyd
Jose "cheMMa" Rodriguz on Think: George Floyd
Aniza Thomas on Think: George Floyd
David Seay on Think: George Floyd
Marc LJ on Think: George Floyd
andre edwards on Think: George Floyd
Terelle Jerricks on From Pop Culture to Cop Culture
Sharon Hislop on Think: George Floyd
Fetteroff on Think: George Floyd
Raul Acevedo Jr. on Think: George Floyd
Mel Grayson on Think: George Floyd
Terelle Jerricks on A Virtual World of Events 
Alice r. Knoop on Lung Health Tips for COVID-19
Melina Paris on Take me to Sardine
Joshua E Chambers on Take me to Sardine
Chad Dorchester on Take me to Sardine
Terelle Jerricks on Change Won’t Be Televised
Melina Paris on Take me to Sardine
Melina Paris on Take me to Sardine
Melina Paris on Take me to Sardine
Bob Kohler on About
Judie M Barker on About
Kim Kaufman on Staff
Kim Kaufman on Staff
Vivian Morales on From War to Lowrider
Robin Doyno on Staff
Publisher on About
Joe Stackhouse on Advertise
Marshariki Haylock on A Stabbing in San Pedro
CARRIE MENDOZA on A Stabbing in San Pedro
Martin Palmiere EMC(SW) ret. on Trouble on the Iowa
Martin A.Palmiere EMC(SW) USN(ret.) on Trouble on the Iowa
John H Winkler on Frequently Asked Questions
J. McVey on Staff
Malou Mariano on Tampering and Collusion
Terrell Williams on The New Gap Band Fills The Gap
Alton C . Thompson, Ph. D. on About
Harold Ericsson on Letters to the Editor
Hillbinkel on Trouble on the Iowa
Ian Gordon on KKJZ Leaves CSULB Campus
larry lebedin on KKJZ Leaves CSULB Campus
Joseph Bianco on Frequently Asked Questions
Deborah Steed on Zerby Family Finds Solace
Don Griffin on Rosenberg
Pete on About
Anne Marie Knudsen on Clem Pennington is the Whole Package
Terelle Jerricks on About
Lyn Jensen on Go Retro with Records
Steven R. Heldt on Fig Trees Are Like Democracies
Joanne Sims on Peacocks, Paseo, Politics
Dave Borst-Smith on Peacocks, Paseo, Politics
Charles Traupmann on The Buscaino Report:
james P. Allen on Across the Great Divide
Allyson Vought on Across the Great Divide
PBinLostAngeles on RL NEWS Roundups: June 14, 2016
davehall on Voter Guide
Chris formica Gringos Tacos on Food Truck Blues
Random Lengths News on Iowa Fever
Tinisha Rodrique on IMG_1761
polos fred perry on Less Than a Side Show
cheap soccer jersey on Less Than a Side Show
le mahjong gratuit on The Surrealness of Knives and Breast
Harry and the Gang on Sherlock Holmes at the LB Playhouse
neufert architect s data pdf on IMG_1761
sewing machine reviews on Annie at the Warner Grand