WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act yesterday in a ruling denounced as a setback for civil rights by President Barack Obama and anti-racism activists.
In a hotly anticipated decision, the justices ruled by five votes to four that part of the 1965 law that sets a formula for deciding which states must seek Washington’s blessing when amending voting laws is unconstitutional.
“Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting,” Chief Justice John Roberts argued, writing in the majority opinion issued with the verdict.
But Obama said he was “deeply disappointed” in a ruling that rejected a key clause in an act that guards against racial discrimination in US states with a segregationist past.
America’s first black president said the ruling “upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.”
“While today’s decision is a setback, it doesn’t represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination,” he said. “I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls.”
The Voting Rights Act — which was last renewed by Congress in 2006 — is opposed by some states which see it as outmoded, but a number of civil rights organisations have argued it is still needed.
Under the act, nine mainly Southern states, as well as county and local governments in seven states, are required to obtain Justice Department approval for any changes to their voting laws.
The Supreme Court heard the case just months after Obama’s 2012 re-election — a landmark that critics of the act pointed to as evidence that the law is unnecessary.
The nine-member court had left the Voting Rights Act alone the last time it reviewed it in 2009, but strongly urged Congress to reform it on the grounds that “things have changed in the South.”
The nine states concerned are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, while the local governments are in California, Florida, Michigan and New York.
“Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance,” Roberts wrote.
“Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices,” he said. “Today the nation is no longer divided (as it was in 1965) ... yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.” It was up to Congress, Roberts added, to decide whether to draft another formula for preclearance “based on current conditions.”
On the bedrock principle that Washington can approve voting-law changes, enshrined in Section 5 of the law, the court said such an “uncommon exercise of congressional power” could be justified by “exceptional conditions.”
AFP
