Featured

Heritage: Voting Rights at the Supreme Court Today

Featured
@stevenfoley

A former U.S.Marine, he is the Creator of The Minority Report Network. He is also the Founder and Managing Editor of the Network’s flagship site, www.theminorityreportblog.com, Former Director of New Media for Liberty.com, Former Director of New Media for Liberty First PAC, and the Former Chief Managing Editor of 73Wire.com. Steve is a well respected national conservative blogger who’s dedicated the past several years of his life advancing conservatism online. Recently Steve was instrumental in the development of Liberty.com, Liberty First PAC, The Patriot Caucus, the national campaign trail and grassroots news site73wire.com.

To understand what’s going on in the Supreme Court today, we have to go back in time.

The year was 1965. Hundreds of people gathered in Selma, Alabama, to march for black Americans’ right to vote. Some states, especially in the South, had set up obstacles to voting, such as charging would-be voters money or making them take a test.

The marchers were beaten back by police with billy clubs and tear gas in what would become a historic outrage. But just a few months later, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, making it illegal for towns to discriminate in any way in their voting practices.

Johnson said that day:

Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny.

Congress ensured that states could not get around the new law by coming up with more changes to local voting rules. For those areas that had historically discriminated against people, the law required that they check with the feds before making changes to their voting practices. This part of the law is called Section 5.

Section 5 was supposed to be temporary. It was supposed to transition the states into the new law and ensure that they were all implementing it correctly. As President Johnson said at the time, “if any county anywhere in this nation does not want federal intervention, it need only open its polling places to all of its people.”

The problem is, that federal intervention continues to this day. And that is what the Supreme Court is considering today—the outdated Section 5, not the whole Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act provides “broad and powerful protection against discrimination,” explains Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky, a former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s take on Section 5, the Voting Rights Act remains in effect to protect all Americans from voter discrimination.

But Section 5 outlived its purpose decades ago—and the federal government is still forcing some voting jurisdictions to justify all of their local rule changes. Von Spakovsky points out:

[Section 5] effectively presumes that all voting-related actions by certain states and jurisdictions are discriminatory and therefore requires that they obtain pre-approval from the federal government for otherwise ordinary and routine actions, such as moving a polling station from a school that is under renovation to another one down the street or drawing new redistricting plans. This is a major and unusual imposition on state sovereignty.

What was originally intended to safeguard individual liberty has become a way for the feds to attack state liberty. For the Department of Justice and many activists, Section 5 merely exists to bully local authorities.

Von Spakovsky says that if Section 5 were struck down, “The only change would be to curb the abuses of federal bureaucrats and check the power and influence of the liberal activist groups that rely on Section 5 to enforce their agendas.”

Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Shelby County (AL) v. Holder, the case raising the question of Section 5’s constitutionality. The case doesn’t threaten anyone’s right to vote; it deals with an outdated provision that is no longer necessary—and in fact has become an unwarranted federal intrusion into local practices.

More in Featured

sheriffofnottingham

New IRS Horror Story

ahzombzDec 21, 2014
14-1221 - Blood on their Hands

The Racism Industry Butchers Two NYC Cops

Michael BeckerDec 21, 2014
CP_MeanC

Mean Christians

Candice LanierDec 18, 2014
Air_Force_One_over_Mt._Rushmore 4

Obama Star-Grazing Trip Costs A Cool Million

Streetwise_ITDec 18, 2014
14-1218 - Transparency

IRS Watchdog Continues to Hide Records on White House Leaks

Michael BeckerDec 18, 2014

The Minority Report is a network of websites devoted to Conservative & Libertarian politics in the United States.

On this site you'll find posts & links to some of the best and most comprehensive center-right news and opinion on the net...

February 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728  

Archives

Copyright © 2014 The Minority Report Network