In Case You Missed It: NBA in Baltimore

Goldberg: A ruling on racial progress

ElectionsJustice SystemJohn G. Roberts, Jr.Clarence Thomas

I can only hope that the scourge of racism is finally purged from Stewartstown and Pinkham's Grant. These are two of 10 New Hampshire towns covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires local officials to get permission, or "preclearance," on any changes to their election laws.

Stewartstown has just over a thousand souls in it and is 99% white. In 1970, when it was put under the authority of Section 5, the census listed two blacks out of its 1,008 residents. Pinkham's Grant boasts nine residents, and it must also beg Washington for permission to make any changes to how it votes.

In 1970, New Hampshire required all of its citizens to pass a literacy test to register to vote. But Pinkham's Grant, Stewartstown and the other eight towns also had low voter participation rates. These two factors — a test of any kind for voting and participation rates under 50% — met the criteria for oversight under Section 5.

But after years of onerous preparation, the state filed for a "bailout" from the oversight provisions of Section 5 in November. And although the Justice Department hasn't taken a whole state off its watch list since the early 1980s, New Hampshire will probably be let off the hook.

In 2009, the Supreme Court signaled to the Justice Department that the Voting Rights Act was sorely in need of updating. In 1965, the legislation was a radical but necessary response to entrenched, institutionalized racism. Today, blacks vote at a higher rate than whites in many Section 5 jurisdictions, and in others the shortfall is hardly due to anything like Jim Crow. Latino rates are on the rise too.

Nine whole states are still covered; seven of them are from the old Confederacy (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia) plus Arizona and Alaska. But there are jurisdictions in parts of Florida, California and the Confederate bastions of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan in New York City that must seek preclearance from Uncle Sam as well.

"The evil that Section 5 is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance," the high court said in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One vs. Holder.

Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the prospect of getting a bailout — i.e. getting out from under Section 5 — is essentially a "mirage." The Justice Department is eager to prove it's not, because the court is hearing a new case Wednesday, Shelby County vs. Holder, which the court could use to throw out the whole regime.

Liberals are horrified by any talk of getting the feds out of the election business, somewhat understandably. The passage of the Voting Rights Act is a treasured chapter in American political history. It's also not surprising that much of the argument for keeping it unreformed rests on the emotional resonance of the civil rights movement half a century ago and the alleged popularity of the law.

Nostalgia is a weak argument for any law, or so liberals usually tell me. As Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in 2009: "Past success alone … is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements." And, popularity shouldn't be an issue at all. The popularity of slavery was one reason the court could hand down an opinion such as Dred Scott.

President Obama (who twice carried Virginia) disagrees. If the preclearance requirement were stripped, he said, it "would be hard for us to catch those things up front to make sure that elections are done in an equitable way." That's true. But that logic basically amounts to turning the Civil Rights Division into a permanent department of pre-crime.

It's true Congress keeps renewing the law (the last vote extends Section 5 until 2031), but one reason is that liberal politicians, journalists and activists are quick to demagogue anyone in favor of retiring it as being "anti-civil rights," in much the same way any criticism of the Violence Against Women Act is instantly spun as support for wife-beating.

Whether the court ends up throwing it all out or simply goading the Justice Department to do the right thing, the court is playing a useful role by forcing our system to acknowledge the fact of racial progress.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
ElectionsJustice SystemJohn G. Roberts, Jr.Clarence Thomas
  • Police need to know the laws they enforce

    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" — except when you're a police officer. That's essentially the argument the state of North Carolina made to the U.S. Supreme Court last week when it defended the drug conviction of a man whose car was stopped by police based on a...

  • Pay workers for time spent at security checkpoint

    Imagine you've finished your shift, left your workstation, and as you exit the building you have to wait an additional 20 or 25 minutes to clear a security checkpoint set up by your employer to ensure that you aren't stealing anything. Should you be paid for that time as part of...

  • Supreme Court should give half an inch on inmate's beard

    When it ruled this year that Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation, had a religious right to refuse to include contraception in its employee health insurance plans, the Supreme Court pushed an important principle to unreasonable extremes. But the principle itself — that government...

  • Let's lift the Supreme Court's veil of secrecy

    Every year the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are faced with about 7,500 writs of certiorari seeking appellate review of lower court decisions, granting only 75 to 80. It takes four justices to grant a writ, though amazingly that rule is nowhere written down and the justices could change...

  • Why won't the Supreme Court decide on same-sex marriage?
    Why won't the Supreme Court decide on same-sex marriage?

    Gay rights supporters were simultaneously jubilant and perplexed Monday when the Supreme Court announced that it wouldn't review three decisions by federal appeals courts striking down state bans on same-sex marriage. We share their mixed feelings.

  • The Supreme Court's supremely flawed record

    As a constitutional law professor, I have mixed feelings about the first Monday in October. On the one hand, I look forward to the start of the new Supreme Court term in the same way a baseball fan looks forward to opening day. But I also dread what the court might do.

Comments
Loading