The Voting Rights Act 1965 in the United States was enacted at the time, in a bid to stem the high level of state disenfranchisement at the ballot mostly on the basis of race. It also was enacted following a struggle by civil rights activists and demonstrations that were marked by violence and deaths. The law was meant to cure the discriminatory restrictions that were present at the time especially against the Blacks, Asians and the Hispanics. The law was subsequently followed with amendments of which the latest was in the year 2006. The 2006 amendment sought to validate the position that states that had been marked as areas with the strongest discriminatory practices must obtain a preclearance from the Justice Department before enacting any voting law. The Supreme Court of the United States recently struck down a part of the Voting Rights Act in the case of Shelby County v Holder asserting that the preclearance requirement was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court based its decision on the ground that past discriminatory practices could not be held to be the position today and that states should not be punished for acts that were done at the time of the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. The court was of the view that the requirement of some states to obtain special permission from the federal government before changing a practice relating to election was predicated on old data and eradicated practices. This argument is meritorious to the extent that past acts which may have been eradicated by the particular states cannot be used to validate an action to the detriment of the state. It is the nature of law to be organic and respond effectively to changes as they occur. Besides, the preclearance requirement is intrusive to the particular states and there exists cogent evidence to the effect that things have substantially changed towards the eradication of discriminatory practices on the basis of race.
The argument that the striking down of the preclearance of states as provided in the Voting Rights Act works and has helped in blocking around 31 discriminatory practices is not enough. So is the argument that the prospect of preclearance acts as a strong deterrent to states seeking to propose changes to their election rules. The recalcitrance and the witnessed withdrawal of changes once the Justice Department raises questions as to those changes can only indicate a desire by the states to circumvent the law and escape the rigorous standards that are needed to protect the marginalized. The preclearance requirement as enacted was meant to battle the literacy tests, poll taxes and other forms of discrimination unique in the 1960’s and this situation does not obtain in modern day. Further, the contention that the removal of the preclearance requirement provides a leeway for the particular states to enact discriminatory legislation is not appealing in the least. The States do not obtain unbridled powers by virtue of the Supreme Court decision. It is important to note that the Supreme Court did not interfere with the power of the federal courts of bailing in particular states into the list of those that shall be subject to the preclearance requirement.
Conclusion
It is evident that the preclearance requirement as it stood before its striking down by the Supreme Court was discriminatory and ran afoul of the ideals of the civil rights agitation which enabled the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. The requirement for states to obtain clearance in order to propose changes to the laws long after the states have departed from the decade-old practice is a travesty of the proper administration of justice. To this end, the Supreme Court decision is a step in the right direction. It is also instructive to note that the decision does not provide an opportunity for states to enact discriminatory legislation without consequences as enumerated above. Rather, the law seeks to free the individual states covered in the jurisdiction from the egregious acts of their predecessors.
Works Cited
Crayton, Kareem, et al. " “Brief of Political Science and Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents”. Shelby County v. Holder et. al. Washington, DC." University of Washington,Department of Political Science Journal (2013): 5-11.
Schaffner, Brian F. Politics. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010.
