[The
following guest column by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick
Leahy (D-Vt.) was originally published in the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution on April 29, 2009. This morning, Leahy
attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Northwest Austin
Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, a case involving
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.]
Available for
immediate use.
A Crucial
Voting Rights Case
Reaches
The Supreme Court
by
Patrick Leahy
Today the U.S. Supreme
Court will consider a case challenging the constitutional authority of
Congress to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Three
years ago, the Senate and House of Representatives overwhelmingly
reauthorized expiring provisions of this critical civil rights law.
The challenge brought today before the nation’s highest court threatens
to undermine one of the nation’s premier laws protecting the right to
vote.
The Voting Rights Act of
1965 resulted from the historic struggle for civil rights, which reached
a crucial turning point in Selma in 1965, when John Lewis and his fellow
civil rights marchers were brutally attacked by state troopers while
exercising their civil rights. The stark images of that “Bloody
Sunday” jolted citizens nationwide and spurred Congress to pass the
Voting Rights Act to ensure equal access to our democracy, regardless of
race.
In contrast to the
resistant, bitter politics that followed the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
an historic bipartisan event on the steps of the U.S. Capitol launched
Congress’s 2006 work to reauthorize sections of the law.
The legislation introduced then cited specific findings highlighting the
need to reauthorize the Act, including that “discrimination in voting
continue[s] to exist.” Those findings concluded that without
reauthorization, “racial and language minority citizens will be
deprived” of their right to vote, undermining 40 years of progress.
Following a unanimous Senate vote, and a near unanimous House vote, the
reauthorization Act became law.
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the
Constitution grant Congress the authority to remedy
discrimination, and Congress is at the height of its prerogatives when
enacting laws that address racial discrimination in connection with
voting. These Amendments have not changed, nor has the authority
of Congress to enforce them.
At issue in the case now
before the Supreme Court -- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility
District Number One v. Holder – is Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, which provides a remedy for unconstitutional discrimination in
voting by requiring certain jurisdictions with a history of
discrimination to “pre-clear” all voting changes with either the Justice
Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
In 2006, after 19 hearings and in thousands of pages of testimony and
documents, the Senate Judiciary Committee found evidence in three
critical areas: (1) Even with Section 5 in place, covered jurisdictions
continue to engage in discriminatory, often subtle, tactics, that play
on racially polarized voting to deny the effectiveness of the votes cast
by members of a particular race; (2) Section 5 provides an effective
deterrent against bad practices in covered jurisdictions; and (3)
Section 5 plays a vital role in preserving the gains minority voters
have achieved.
Before the Voting Rights
Act, minorities of all races faced major barriers to democratic
participation through poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation
by voting officials, language barriers, systematic vote dilution and
other tactics. Section 5 combats the practice of covered
jurisdictions shifting from one invalidated discriminatory voting tactic
to another.
Not until the passage of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were people of all races in many parts of
our country able to effectively exercise the rights granted 95 years
earlier by the Fifteenth Amendment. Despite
the gains we have made in building a more inclusive democracy, the work
of the Voting Rights Act is not yet complete. The Act has
been a source of protection for the voting rights of those long
discriminated against, and a deterrent against new discriminatory
efforts.
The Voting Rights Act
transformed America by ushering in an era of greater inclusion.
Now some suggest that Section 5 should be a
victim of its success. In my view, abandoning a successful
deterrent just because it works defies logic and common sense.
When Congress finds an effective and constitutional way to prevent
violations of the law, the courts must uphold it. In fact,
since 1966, whenever the Supreme Court has reviewed or even cited to the
Voting Rights Act, it has affirmed the Act as a valid exercise of
congressional authority.
Almost three years ago Congress voted nearly unanimously to extend the
vital remedies of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I am
confident that when the Justices review the substantial record compiled
by Congress, they will support the clear success of this vital civil
rights legislation.
# # # # #
[Senator Patrick
Leahy (D-Vt.) is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was
the lead Democratic sponsor of the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting
Rights Act. The Supreme Court today will hear oral arguments in
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder.]