Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Editorial
News Opinion Editorial

Defending voting rights

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was right to tell the National Urban League last month that despite a Supreme Court ruling in July striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department will still seek to block Texas and other states from changing their voting laws in ways that limit minorities' access to the polls. The short-sighted action by the court's conservative majority threatens to turn back the clock for millions of black and Hispanic voters in states with a past history of discrimination and demands a vigorous response from the Justice Department to protect the right to cast a ballot. Though the court weakened the federal government's ability to act in the interests of democracy, the justices didn't eliminate it, and what Mr. Holder is doing is both appropriate and necessary.

The justices declared unconstitutional Section 4 of the law, which determined which states and counties were required to get federal pre-approval before changing election laws in ways that disproportionately affected minority voters, but erecting barriers to voting based on race or ethnicity is still illegal. Despite the changes the country has experienced since the law was passed in 1965, the laws against voter discrimination still require enforcement, and the Justice Department has the authority to go after states that attempt it.

Mr. Holder is using other provisions of the act to prevent states from enacting changes that were discriminatory in intent, specifically Section 5 of the law, which allows the government to block discriminatory voting laws from taking effect, and Section 3, which permits federal judges to require states and jurisdictions to get Justice Department approval for any changes in voting laws. Although following that process is not as good as pre-clearance — which stopped bad laws before they had a chance to damage minority voting rights — it's better than nothing.

Conservative Republicans immediately branded the attorney general's remarks as an attempt to defy the nation's highest court, or at least do an end run around the justices' intent. It is nothing of the sort. In declaring his intent to go after states that attempt to pass discriminatory voting laws, Mr. Holder is doing exactly what the court said his department can and should do to ensure minority voting rights are protected.

Moreover, if there were any doubt that those rights are in danger, the recent actions of Texas and other states previously covered by the law's "pre-clearance" requirement clearly show why voter discrimination can't be dismissed as a thing of the past. On the same day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Texas' attorney general announced that a voter-ID law a lower court had blocked as discriminatory in 2011 would go into effect immediately, and over the next week four more former states that had been subject to the pre-clearance requirement — Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia and North Carolina — quickly moved to tighten restrictions on voting.

The disproportionate and discriminatory effect of such laws on minority voters, especially measures imposing photo ID requirements and curbs on early voting, has been well-documented. African-American and Hispanic voters are less likely than whites to have government-issued IDs, and they also make up a larger proportion of early voters. States can't be allowed to use these modern equivalents of the poll tax and literacy tests to re-impose the same old discriminatory practices the law was intended to prevent.

Though clearly much has changed in America over the past 40 years, the federal government still has a vital role to play in defending minority rights. Congress recognized that when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act nearly unanimously as recently as 2006, and it can still restore the law's full protection by revising Section 4 of the act using more recent data — of which there's no shortage, given the transparent attempts of states like Texas to turn back the clock. Until then, Mr. Holder should spare no effort to ensure that minority voters are able to exercise their most fundamental right in a democracy.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Lieberman: Obama must reveal side deals on Iran nuclear program

    Lieberman: Obama must reveal side deals on Iran nuclear program

    Members of Congress must know more about secret side arrangements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran before they vote on the proposed nuclear agreement with Tehran. Why won't the Obama administration reveal the topics that the various side deals touch upon?

  • The poster state for climate change

    The poster state for climate change

    With all due respect to Ohio Republicans and their collective affection for the late William McKinley, whose second term in the White House was cut short 114 years ago by an anarchist's bullets, the most important event of President Barack Obama's trip to Alaska was not the return of Mount Denali...

  • Freddie Gray case: Order in the court

    Freddie Gray case: Order in the court

    For the first several days after Freddie Gray's death in April, thousands of Baltimoreans peacefully took to the streets to protest his treatment by police and to demand broader changes in neighborhoods like the one where he lived. Whatever it was that led to the rioting that followed — outside...

  • Trump the Barbarian

    Trump the Barbarian

    Whether he is fielding questions from the press or talking to voters, Donald Trump is consistently comfortable in his own florid skin and flamboyant hair. To the amazement of veteran journalists, political operatives and the other Republican candidates, that is making him a very formidable contender...

  • The Mandel legacy

    The Mandel legacy

    Marvin Mandel passed away on Sunday at the age of 95, but his legacy lives on, not only in his successes as governor but for his willingness to manipulate the legislative process to benefit his circles of friends who were, in turn, quite generous to him. Marylanders should not forget either side...

  • O'Malley's sweetheart deal

    O'Malley's sweetheart deal

    When Martin O'Malley left the governor's mansion in January, he and his wife were allowed to buy for $9,638 dozens of pieces of furniture the taxpayers had spent $62,000 to purchase, most of it eight years earlier, on the grounds that it was "junk" that would otherwise have been thrown away. Those...

Comments
Loading
74°