In 1965 Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. Among a number of goals, one of the fundamental purposes of the Voting Rights Act was to protect the right of all citizens to vote and ensure that they would be no barriers for anyone to vote. In short, the Voting Rights Act was passed to eliminate voting discrimination. In 2013, the Supreme Court found a provision of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. In one stroke, the Court’s ruling undid almost 50 years of work in voting rights. The fear among many now is that the nation will see a return to the discriminatory voting laws of the past. For others, this is not the time to stand idly but the time to act and forge a new way to make sure voting is fair.
Senator Ellis’s letter, presumably to his constituents, is a call to action for people in his district to stand up and fight for their right to fair elections and against voter discrimination. Ellis was sparked to action by the 2013 Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to be unconstitutional. Originally, Section 5 of Voting Right Act required a number of states, including Texas, that have a history of discriminatory voting practices, to get pre-clearance approval from the US Department of Justice before making a change to their election laws or voter district maps. Section 4 of the Act, on the other hand, details the formula that is used to determine which states require pre-clearance. While Shelby, found Section 5 to be unconstitutional, by striking Section 4, the Court in essence rendered Section 5 unworkable. Ellis argues that without the protections of Section 5’s pre-clearance approvals, Texas and other states will reintroduce the discriminatory voting actions of the past the Voting Rights Act was passed to stop in the first place. As proof, Ellis points to Texas’ voter ID law and redistricting policies. According to Ellis, without Section 5 to block them, the voter ID laws and redistricting has not only “made is significantly more difficult” for nearly one million voters of color to vote but have also been found “deliberately discriminatory.”
Senator Ellis is absolutely right to be nervous. Undoubtedly, discrimination exists and that it most certainly affects what voting laws and how voting policies are implemented towards minorities. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts said in Shelby, “voting discrimination still exists, no one doubts that” (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013). He is also right to fear that without Section 5’s protections, it is likely that states which historically discriminated against minority voters will do so again. This is illustrated not only in the examples offered by Ellis himself but also by the fact that in Texas at least only one-third of the legislative seats are held by minority representatives. Accordingly, any bill for that might make it potentially harder for a non-minority incumbent to keep his seat in a state that is 55 percent minority seems highly unlikely. To be sure, the opposite effect would likely occur with the passage of laws and policies to aim to protect incumbents. Finally, Ellis is correct in his call to action. Now that Section 4 has been declared unconstitutional, people can’t rely on it for protection. What is needed now is citizen action. As Ellis suggests, citizen action can take several forms. First it can be used to put pressure on Congress to “update” Section 4, as the Court suggests” to be more in line with current standards yet also ensuring fair and non-discriminatory voting practices. Second, it can put pressure on state legislature to avoid enacting discriminatory voting laws. Finally, it can use the laws as they are to force change. Indeed, by educating the public, registering voters according to the laws on the books, making sure that on voting day all voters follow the laws, people can still vote out those people they oppose (the people that support more restrictive voting laws).
References
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 US ___ (2013). Retrieved on October 3, 2014, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/
