ILNews

SCOTUS strikes portion of Voting Rights Act; will hand down term’s final decisions Wednesday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States held Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional Tuesday, ruling that its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance. The case stems from Shelby County in Alabama asking for a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was created to address racial discrimination in voting. Section 4 provides a “coverage formula,” defining the “covered jurisdictions” as states or political subdivisions that maintained tests or devices as perquisites to voting and had low voter registration or turnout. Section 5 says no change in voting procedures can take effect until approved by authorities in Washington, D.C. The states covered by the original enactment were Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia, but subsequent amendments of the Act added other states or portions of other states and it now applies to nine states and several additional counties.

The coverage formula and preclearance requirement have been reauthorized over the years, but the coverage formula has not changed.

The 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 12-96, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, held Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions. The provisions of Section 5 only apply to those jurisdictions singled out by Section 4.

“Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically,” Roberts wrote. “The tests and devices that blocked access to the ballot have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years.”

“Striking down an Act of Congress ‘is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.’ We do not do so lightly,” he continued. “That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader con¬cerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he explained that he would find Section 5 unconstitutional as well. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a dissent, joined by Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. She wrote, “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective. The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed. With that belief, and the argument derived from it, history repeats itself.”

The justices also handed down:
•    Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 12-399, which held assuming for the sake of argument that the biological father is a “parent” under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, neither Section 1912(f) nor (d) bars the termination of his parental rights; and
•    Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 11-1447, which held the government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the Nollan/Dolan requirements even when it denies the permit.

The Supreme Court will meet for the last time this term at 10 a.m. Wednesday to hand down decisions, which likely will include the two cases addressing same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act: Hollingsworth v. Perry, 12-144, and United States v. Windsor, 12-307.

The other case expected to be handed down is Sekhar v. United States, 12-357, which asks whether the recommendation of an attorney who is a salaried employee of a governmental agency, in a single instance, is tangible property that can be the subject of an extortion attempt under 18 U.S.C. Section 1951 and Section 875(d).

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT