Supreme Court: Sec. 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, striking down a key part of a landmark Civil Rights-era law that protected voters from discrimination. The decision covers Arizona's election laws.
By a vote of 5-4, the court ruled that Section 4, which used data from the 1960s and 70s to provide a "coverage formula" for Section 5, could "no longer be used."
The decision on Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act defines the “covered jurisdictions” of states that were found to racially discriminate and had low voter registration in the 1960s and early 1970s.
"Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically," the ruling read.
"Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, '[v]oter turnout and registration rates' in covered jurisdictions now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels. ...Yet the Act has not eased restrictions or narrowed the scope of section 4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger."
The ruling leaves the Voting Rights Act's Section 5 in place, which requires certain states to get preapproval for changes in their election rules. However, Section 5 largely loses its significance without Section 4, which would determine which states required such preapproval.
Roberts, who wrote the decision, said, "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."
Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent, said, "The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective. The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed."
This article originally appeared on GlobalPost.