Voting rights in a changed America
For liberals, there is no cause to match the cause of civil rights in the 1960s — when Southern segregationists violently opposed equality for blacks and the federal government acted assertively in pursuit of justice. When it comes to any issue involving race, these liberals have a pronounced tendency to spy the ghost of George Wallace.
That impulse was on display Tuesday, after the Supreme Court struck down a major part of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. That provision required nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal approval before making the slightest change in election laws and procedures. The reactions made it sound as though the term “black voter” will soon be a self-contradiction.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said it “halts nearly 50 years of civil rights progress,” a comment especially illuminating, though not for the reason he intended.
Illinois is one of the states that the law treats as fit to exercise control over elections. But as the lawyers for Shelby County, Ala., told the Supreme Court, it was among six uncovered states that lost more voting discrimination lawsuits than five of the covered states.
The court didn't say racism and voting discrimination are things of the past. It merely said that they are not peculiar to the South, or necessarily more prevalent in the South.
Texas and South Carolina wanted to require voters to present a government-issued photo ID when they show up at the polls. Under the Voting Rights Act, they were barred from doing so. Indiana wanted to impose the same rule. It was allowed.
Was this because the requirements were radically different? No. Because there are black people in Indiana? No. Because Hoosiers get driver's licenses at birth? No.
It's because what qualifies as racial discrimination in some places does not qualify as racial discrimination there. Not that black voters have it better in Indiana. In fact, they are less likely than blacks in Texas and South Carolina to be registered and less likely to vote.
The unequal treatment of states has been the law since 1965. Southern states had shown a virulent determination to keep blacks from voting by any means. Special scrutiny made sense then. It doesn't make much sense now.
Under the section of the law that was overturned, what states actually do isn't important. What matters is what they did — decades ago. And that criterion was scheduled to remain in effect until 2031.
But the modern South is a place Bull Connor wouldn't recognize. In 1965, only 6.7 percent of Mississippi's black adults were registered to vote. In 2004, the black registration rate was 76.1 percent — vs. 72.3 percent for whites. Other Southern states have made huge gains, too.
But they still had to obtain federal approval of every change in voting procedures. This might make sense if they were still attempting to disenfranchise minorities. But as a dissent in the appeals court documented, the Justice Department raised “only five objections for every ten thousand submissions between 1998 and 2002.”
The court's critics will say such widespread compliance proves the Voting Rights Act deters bad actors. By this logic, there are never grounds for changing it. Discrimination proves the need. But so does nondiscrimination.
If the feds want to treat a state by a stricter standard, they should base that treatment on what is actually happening today. States that have not changed should get tough scrutiny. Those that have gotten worse, ditto. But those that have good records should be treated like grownups.
Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clues to Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking on new ObamaCare case
- Pirates enter Plan B with Martin off market
- Reflecting frustration, Webb eyes presidency
- 5 arrested on firearm, drug charges in Spring Hill
- For Steelers, a fight to finish for playoff berth
- Derry water outage may be resolved by 5 p.m. Sunday, authority says
- Starkey: No explaining Steelers, AFC North
- Boy with fake gun dies after being shot by Cleveland cop
- Shooting victims live with bullets to survive, thrive
- Penguins minor league notebook: Pouliot impresses early in season
- For Pitt men’s basketball team, trouble in paradise