Scalia's take on Voting Rights Act a slap in the face to civil rights advocates

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Copy Link

  Link Copied

Modern-day Jim Crow

Today’s conservative war on voting rights is led by an overwhelmingly white, Southern-dominant Republican Party and their well-funded operatives, enablers and patrons such as the Koch brothers.  And this war, like the Jim Crow voter suppression and intimidation techniques, is designed to block the vote of African-Americans, Latinos and others.

Voter disenfranchisement was a problem back in the day, but it is still a big issue now.  The 20^th Century version of Jim Crow comes in the form of voter ID laws, laws denying the vote to people with a criminal background, regulations that restrict early voting, and GOP redistricting plans that are once again segregating the former Confederacy.

“This statute is in part about our march through history to keep promises that our Constitution says for too long were unmet,” said Debo P. Adegbile, special counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which has intervened in the Supreme Court case.  Adegbile argued before the court that Section 5, the “pre-clearance” section, is crucial in defending the rights of voters of color in areas of the U.S. with the worst record of voter discrimination.

“Without Section 5, the very purpose of the Voting Rights Act will be demolished,” said Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network and MSNBC. “It is the most detrimental blowback against our fundamental civil rights as citizens. After individuals like Martin Luther King Jr. and countless unnamed heroes of the civil rights era gave their lives for our liberties, we cannot allow this to take place.”

Arguing that racial discrimination is nonexistent

Meanwhile, conservatives also argue that the problem the Voting Rights Act was designed to address—racial discrimination— no longer exists.  Chief Justice John Roberts has a long history of opposing the law, and did his best to try to weaken the law in the Reagan administration.

“Things have changed in the South,” Roberts said in 2009, claiming the Voting Rights Act “differentiates between the states in ways that are in tension with our fundamental tradition of equal sovereignty among the states.”  The justice added that such distinctions “may no longer be justified by current conditions.”

Similarly, the other conservatives on the court, including Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, have expressed their opposition to the law.  Justice Anthony Kennedy will provide the swing vote in Shelby County.

“Some parts of the South have changed. Your county pretty much hasn’t,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the counsel representing Shelby County. “You may be the wrong party bringing this.”

Six of the nine states covered by Section 5 have passed voter ID and other voting restrictions in recent years, as opposed to only one-third of other states.  With the opponents of the Voting Rights Act invoking states’ rights and the end of racism, their voter suppression tactics are the best argument in favor of maintaining the law.

A right that people died for

Meanwhile, as Americans preach to the world about the need for democracy, the rule of law and fair and open elections, we treat the franchise as something to use sparingly, for the privileged few.  The U.S. Constitution mentions the right to vote five times. 

This right has expanded over time beyond wealthy, white landowning men to include everyone.  People were maimed and martyred in the streets while fighting for that right.  Conservatives, if they have their way, will reverse the trend and take us back to the future.

The Voting Rights Act protects the minority, but it really protects us all.

Sadly, it seems that in the land of the free, you can have all the guns you want, but you’re out of luck if you want to use the ballot as a weapon instead.  Shame on us, and shame on the court if they kill the Voting Rights Act.

Follow David A. Love on Twitter at @davidalove