The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 8-1 vote that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today" but questioned whether the section is still significant in modern times.
Section 5 requires states with a history of flagrant voter disenfranchisement to seek the approval of a three-judge Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. or the Attorney General whenever they seek to alter state election procedures. Today’s decision of the court came in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric Holder, Jr, Attorney General, et al., in which it was argued that since the district was not a state, they should not be required to seek Federal approval.
The issues raised in this case were the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act as well as the possibility for the Austin district to opt out of Section 5’s requirements.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. “The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable...In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different nation,” Roberts wrote.
“Things have changed in the South,” Roberts continued. “[Section 5‘s] formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions...the Act’s preclearance requirements and its coverage formula raise serious constitutional questions.”
Another question raised concerns over the repeated authorization of Section 5, which was only intended to last five years, by Congress. It was extended for another twenty-five years in 2006.
The Court reversed the judgement of the District Court and concluded that the Voting Rights Act “permits all political subdivisions, including the district in this case, to seek relief from its preclearance requirements”. Since the utility district is entitled to apply for bailout, the Court believed there was no reason to decide the constitutional issue.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, saying he would have struck down Section 5 as unconstitutional.
Voting Rights Act Under Serious Scrutiny By U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 8-1 vote that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today" but questioned whether the section is still significant in modern times.
Section 5 requires states with a history of flagrant voter disenfranchisement to seek the approval of a three-judge Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. or the Attorney General whenever they seek to alter state election procedures. Today’s decision of the court came in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric Holder, Jr, Attorney General, et al., in which it was argued that since the district was not a state, they should not be required to seek Federal approval.
The issues raised in this case were the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act as well as the possibility for the Austin district to opt out of Section 5’s requirements.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. “The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable...In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different nation,” Roberts wrote.
“Things have changed in the South,” Roberts continued. “[Section 5‘s] formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions...the Act’s preclearance requirements and its coverage formula raise serious constitutional questions.”
Another question raised concerns over the repeated authorization of Section 5, which was only intended to last five years, by Congress. It was extended for another twenty-five years in 2006.
The Court reversed the judgement of the District Court and concluded that the Voting Rights Act “permits all political subdivisions, including the district in this case, to seek relief from its preclearance requirements”. Since the utility district is entitled to apply for bailout, the Court believed there was no reason to decide the constitutional issue.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, saying he would have struck down Section 5 as unconstitutional.