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...

  • Small liberal arts colleges lack diversity
    Small liberal arts colleges lack diversity

    Our nation's top liberal arts colleges claim to be crafting the next generation of great writers, artists and scientists, but America has a great deal to worry about if those schools are crafting our future politicians, too. How do I know? I go to one of them.

  • Ebola: taking practical steps
    Ebola: taking practical steps

    The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is truly terrifying. The New England Journal of Medicine's lead article in the Oct. 16 issue states that "the current epidemiological outlook is bleak" in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone and that "unless control measures improve quickly,...

  • Abolish sovereign immunity
    Abolish sovereign immunity

    In the past few months, this country has been rocked by the unfolding horror story at dozens of veterans hospitals. There have been reports of veteran deaths due to malpractice, serious mismanagement at all levels of Veterans Affairs and the resignation, in disgrace, of the VA secretary. In...

  • VA is critical to medicine and vets
    VA is critical to medicine and vets

    During preparation for my confirmation as secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), I was repeatedly asked, "Why doesn't VA just hand out vouchers allowing veterans to get care wherever they want?" For a department recovering from serious issues involving health care access and...

  • Reducing student debt requires a national commitment
    Reducing student debt requires a national commitment

    Tonight, as families of high school students across the country sit down to eat dinner, talk will likely turn to college applications. For those in the midst of the process, the conversation will almost definitely touch on affordability. And for those still a year or two out from college,...

  • When did Baltimore become so chic?
    When did Baltimore become so chic?

    I grew up here, so I'm allowed to say this: Baltimore is not known for being "cool."

  • Ben Bradlee, nonpareil editor
    Ben Bradlee, nonpareil editor

    The death of the famous Washington Post editor is a loss to journalism

Comments
Loading