Bench Memos

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Is Unconstitutional

The elections may be over, but election law is in the spotlight this week as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case of Shelby County v. Holder tomorrow, considering whether or not Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.

Another section of the VRA not at issue here — Section 2 — does the heavy lifting of attacking racism in voting, prohibiting laws that discriminate on the basis of race even as an unintended consequence of an otherwise-neutral law. Section 5, on the other hand, was enacted to prevent certain “covered” states and jurisdictions from inventing new and creative ways to discriminate in voting while technically steering clear of laws that might trigger Section 2. It requires that those states and jurisdictions surmount significant administrative or judicial hurdles any time they want to make a change to their voting laws, no matter how trivial. For example, if a town wants to move its polling place even a block away, change from paper to computerized ballots, change its primary date, or hire more staff to help those who need translation or assistance reading, it would need to apply for permission from the Attorney General.  

Why some jurisdictions and not others? Because those states had low voter registration and turnout, which Congress assumed was a good proxy for racially discriminatory voting laws. The catch is that the low voter turnout triggering serious burdens for these jurisdictions today is calculated as of the 1964, 1968, and 1972 elections — over 40 years ago. 

The Supreme Court has dropped hints over the years that this system raises constitutional red flags, and as recently as 2009 clearly stated that Section 5 “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs” if it wants to take the disfavored step of treating certain states differently than others.

But Congress has been unwilling to revisit the section, whether because it views it as politically dangerous or simply has more important things to do first. The VRA was passed in 1965 and would have expired in 1970, but Congress has repeatedly reauthorized it, first for five years, then seven years, and finally for 25 years at a throw. If the 1965 Congress was overly sanguine in assuming that voting discrimination would be largely under control by 1970, the 2006 Congress makes Eeyore look like a cockeyed optimist. While prohibitions against racist voting laws are already in effect in all 50 states, it determined that the bad-actor jurisdictions of a generation ago still need extra supervision through 2031.

As usual, when Congress neglects its duty to comply with the Constitution, it ends up punting to the Supreme Court.

I expect to see a decisive majority of the Court deciding this case in favor of Shelby County. The Court had alluded to constitutional problems repeatedly immediately before the most recent reauthorization of Section 5, but their concerns fell on deaf ears. And the most recent time the Court looked at this provision it gave a clear and unanimous warning to Congress: Placing burdensome regulations on some states and not others is only permissible if there is current evidence that shows those regulations are related to the targeted problem of racial discrimination in voting.

If Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act does not survive this case, it will be because Congress couldn’t be bothered to heed the Court’s repeated warnings to justify its unequal treatment of different states. As Congress itself has acknowledged, we have come a long way since 1965, and Section 2’s prohibitions on discriminatory voting laws that apply equally to all states are doing a great job of fighting these practices. There is no evidence justifying separate treatment of certain states based on their voting behavior over 40 years ago rather than what is happening today.

(For the record: I filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Judicial Education Project in support of Shelby County, Alabama, the petitioners challenging Section 5 in this case.)

Carrie Severino — Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network.

Most Popular

Culture

Ezra Klein’s Intellectual Demagoguery

Ezra Klein wants you to know that he doesn’t think Sam Harris is a racist. “I’m not here to say you’re racist, I don’t think you are,” Klein explains in a two-hour debate with Harris on the latter’s podcast, Waking Up. “We have not called you one.” No, not at all. Klein is telling the truth ... Read More
Education

The Scholarship/Activism Balance — A Rejoinder

The Martin Center recently published an article by sociology professor Fabio Rojas, in which he argued that professors should maintain the right balance between their teaching and scholarship on the one hand, and activism on the other. In today's article, the Center's Jay Schalin pushes back somewhat. Schalin ... Read More
U.S.

The Book Comey Wanted to Write

Making the click-through worthwhile: the book James Comey had wanted to write, Facebook starts to feel useless to some writers, an infamous D.C. city councilman manages to make everything worse, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign finds its wish granted. What Did James Comey’s First Draft of A Higher ... Read More
Film & TV

Pro-Life Feminist

My paisana at the Human Life Review are hosting an event in NYC on Thursday, May 3, at the Sheen Center (18 Bleeker Street) for the airing of director Jim Hanon’s half-hour documentary, Pro-Life Feminist. After the viewing, he’ll join the trio of castmates -- Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, Aimee Murphy, and ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Good News for Pompeo

Looks like he's in, as he should be. https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/987050849317867521 But this fight has been a hint of what life will be like for Trump if the Democrats somehow take the Senate -- they'd refuse to confirm anyone for anything. Read More