TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Time caught up with VRA

Daily Photo Galleries

Wednesday, June 26, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
 

“But history did not end in 1965.”

— Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday

WASHINGTON

Progressives resent progress when it renders anachronistic once-valid reasons for enlarging the federal government's supervisory and coercive powers. Hence they regret Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling that progress has rendered Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

This section stipulates the formula by which nine states and some jurisdictions in others are brought under Section 5, which requires them to get federal permission — “preclearance” — for even the most minor changes in voting procedures. The 15th Amendment empowers Congress to enforce with “appropriate legislation” the right to vote. Sections 4 and 5 were appropriate 48 years ago, when the preclearance provisions were enacted for five years. They have been extended four times, most recently in 2006 for 25 years.

The VRA is the noblest legislation in American history, more transformative than the 1862 Homestead Act, the 1862 Morrill Act (land-grant colleges) or the 1944 GI Bill of Rights. But extraordinary laws that once were constitutional can become unconstitutional when facts that made the law appropriate change. The most recent data, such as registration and voting rates, on which Section 4 is based, are from 1972. The data would have been 59 years old when the most recent extension would have expired in 2031. Tuesday's decision prevents this absurdity that Congress embraced.

In 2009, in a case in which the court chose not to rule on the continuing constitutionality of the VRA's formula, the court — Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority — clearly challenged Congress to update the VRA because it “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” On Tuesday, Roberts tersely said Section 4 is “based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.”

The 2006 extension was passed by votes of 390-33 and 98-0 in the House and Senate, respectively. Justice Antonin Scalia suggested during February's oral argument that these numbers indicated not conviction based on reflection about continuing necessities but rather the reluctance of risk-averse legislators to vote against something with the “wonderful” name Voting Rights Act. It is anti-constitutional to argue that it would have been admirable “restraint” for the court to respect Congress' decision to extend all of the VRA — whether from conviction, cowardice or sloth — regardless of what the court has called the act's “substantial federalism costs.”

Tuesday's decision came nine years after a presidential election in which most of the states where higher portions of whites than blacks were registered were in states not covered by Section 5. The decision came eight months after a presidential election in which blacks voted at a higher rate than whites. It came when in a majority of the nine states covered by the preclearance requirements, blacks are registered at a higher rate than whites. It came when Mississippi has more black elected officials — not more per capita; more — than any other state.

Section 5 is now a nullity because it lacks force absent a Section 4 formula for identifying covered jurisdictions, and today's Congress will properly refuse to enact another stigmatizing formula. On Tuesday, however, the court paid the VRA the highest possible tribute by saying the act's key provision is no longer constitutional because the act has changed pertinent facts that once made it so.

George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.

 

 
 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Martin’s homer rescues Pirates in 4-2 victory over Brewers
  2. Steelers notebook: Ravens DL fined for hit on Roethlisberger
  3. Beaver footprints found along Allegheny River bank, not gator
  4. Inside the glass: Johnston’s opening practice grueling
  5. Sears to close store at Century III Mall in West Mifflin
  6. Moore hopes to see red (zone) in Steelers debut
  7. Pitt meets Iowa’s muscle
  8. Gorman: For Berrys, football runs in family
  9. Orders for Pittsburgh police hats soar with new uniform policy
  10. City’s plan for Strip flummoxes vendors
  11. Police, bloodhound team locate former athletic director, Greensburg official
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.