Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionOp-Eds

What Scalia really has against the Voting Rights Act

ElectionsAntonin ScaliaU.S. CongressVoting Rights Act of 1965

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is alleged to be one of the great intellects of conservative jurisprudence, but his comments during oral arguments over a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act displayed all the mental acuity of a third-tier talk radio bozo.

Shelby County, Ala., is making the case against the voting law. Section 5 of the act empowers the federal government to negate new local and state voting rules if they would lead to discrimination against minority voters. It has been enforced primarily in Southern states that had a long, dismal history of preventing African Americans from voting. Shelby County contends the problem has been remedied and so Section 5 is no longer justified.

Georgia's U.S. Rep. John Lewis begs to differ. Lewis was severely beaten in Selma, Ala., during the 1965 "Bloody Sunday" police riot directed against peaceful civil rights marchers. The horror of that scene as it played out on America's television screens led directly to congressional approval of the Voting Rights Act.

In an interview with USA Today, Mr. Lewis talked about the methods used to bar blacks from voting back in 1965 and insisted that more subtle impediments still are being employed to undercut voting rights today. "You may not have what we had, such as the literacy tests, or asking people to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap or the number of jelly beans in a jar," Mr. Lewis said. "It may not be the overt acts of violence that we had and witnessed during the '60s. But the result is the same."

As recently as 2006, both houses of Congress agreed with Mr. Lewis. After extensive testimony, lawmakers determined that a long list of problems still exists, and they renewed the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. The vote was overwhelming in the House and unanimous in the Senate and was hailed by President George W. Bush as a victory for American democracy.

In court on Wednesday, however, Justice Scalia mocked that vote. He said the Senate's unanimous vote simply proved the law had not been given serious consideration. The senators were afraid, he said, to cast a vote against a law with a "wonderful" name. He went on to assert that the reauthorization of the act was merely "a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement."

That sort of legal reasoning may be good enough for someone sitting on a bar stool well into his third pint, but it is not good enough for the highest court in the land. Mr. Scalia makes self-serving assumptions about what was on the minds of senators in 2006 -- afraid, not serious, enamored with a name -- with no facts to back up his barbs. Tossing actual statistics back at Mr. Scalia, Justice Elena Kagan cited a string of continued voting rights violations. As to the state of mind of the senators, she said the unanimous vote was pretty good proof the evidence of contemporary abuses was convincing, even to conservative southerners.

"It was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation," Ms. Kagan said.

Undeterred, Justice Scalia opined that a law governing voting rights is "not the kind of question you can leave to Congress." Oh, really? The right to vote is the core of our constitutional democracy. It is not, as Justice Scalia says, "a racial entitlement," it is an American entitlement. It seems that might be a very useful thing for Congress to watch over and protect. It was eminently important in 1965 and remains important today.

One need only consider the outrageous voter suppression measures attempted in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and other states in the 2012 election cycle to see that the right to vote is still something certain Americans must fight for. It is true that impediments put in the way of black and Latino voters now are not so much about racial animosity as they are about the fact that those racial groups overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, but the effect, as Mr. Lewis says, is the same.

Given the weirdness of his comments, it might not be wrong to assume Mr. Scalia's true concern is less about "racial entitlement" than it is about making sure his fellow Republicans are entitled. Entitled, that is, to manipulate elections when they can no longer win fair and square.

Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Horsey is a political commentator for the Los Angeles Times. Go to latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/ to see more of his work.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
ElectionsAntonin ScaliaU.S. CongressVoting Rights Act of 1965
  • Scalia and racial entitlement
    Scalia and racial entitlement

    The Sun has published several commentaries, including one by Leonard Pitts Jr. ("Wrong about racism," March 3), discussing Justice Antonin Scalia's recent remark during oral arguments about the Voting Rights Act being a "racial entitlement." None squarely address the...

  • Building bridges with international students
    Building bridges with international students

    My Mexican father applied to colleges in the United States in the late 1940s and was offered scholarships by the University of Arizona and by Western Reserve (now Case Western Reserve) in Cleveland. His father sat him down and drew a line from west to east across a map of the United States...

  • Drugs rotting on the vine
    Drugs rotting on the vine

    With Ebola threatening the world's populations, there is a new urgency to find therapies. Bringing naturally occurring pharmaceuticals to market should be a priority for our nation because drugs derived from nature are astonishingly successful. The United States' policy and law,...

  • Improve Baltimore's transit to improve its future
    Improve Baltimore's transit to improve its future

    Can Baltimore continue to do what it takes to become a thriving metropolis like Boston and San Francisco, or are we destined to be stuck in the Detroit-Cleveland post industrial doldrums? That question may well be answered by political and civic leaders in the coming months.

  • JLENS: securing our coast
    JLENS: securing our coast

    This Christmas, the United States Army will deliver a spectacular present to Harford and Baltimore counties. A pair of big white blimps will be flying two miles above Aberdeen Proving Ground — unless Congress balks.

  • True news has substance
    True news has substance

    Someone recently told me that she watches the news on TV every night. Her news broadcast of choice: "Entertainment Tonight."

  • Remembering Frank Mankiewicz
    Remembering Frank Mankiewicz

    In the hard-boiled if fading world of print journalism, it's often said that the only way to look at a politician is down. And the worst crime of all is to work both sides of the street, doubling as a reporter while working for a pol, or vice versa.

  • A hard report to swallow
    A hard report to swallow

    We can understand the possibility that the Baltimore state's attorney's office concluded, after examining the evidence, that it did not have a criminal case against two city police officers who repeatedly struck a patient at MedStar Good Samaritan Hospital with a Taser last May. But...

Comments
Loading