Shelby County v. Holder

  • June 14, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The Supreme Court's right-wing justices have another opportunity to greatly hobble the Voting Rights Act by finding its primary enforcement provision, Section 5, unconstitutional. And the high court is likely to issue its opinion any day now. But U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) at the 2013 ACS National Convention urged progressives to be ready to fight back, to not give up on equality.

    Lewis, a civil rights hero, noted his upbringing in rural Alabama, fifty miles from Montgomery, during an era of Jim Crow, and his inspirations for fighting entrenched racism in an effort to create a more thoughtful and honest country. One where the Constitution's promises of equal protection and due process under the law are met.

    “When I was growing up, I saw those signs that said 'white men, colored men,' and 'white women, colored women.' I would ask my mother, my father, my grandparents, my great grandparents, why? And they would say, 'That's just the way it is. Don't get in the way, don't get in trouble.' But I heard of Rosa Parks, heard the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. on the radio. The action of Rosa Parks, the leadership and words of Dr. King inspired me to get in the way, to get into trouble, good trouble, necessary trouble. And I think it's time for all of us once again to get into trouble, good trouble, necessary trouble.

    “I have a strange feeling in America, at this point in history, we're just a little too quiet,” he continued. “We've come to a point where we almost want to resign, and say this is just the way it is. But it doesn't have to be this way. There are still too many people in our society who have been left out and left behind.”

    Lewis focused on how one might react to the outcome of the Supreme Court's consideration of Shelby County v. Holder, the case challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act's Section 5 as a heavy-handed federal government intrusion on state sovereignty. Section 5 covers states and towns, mostly in the South, with long histories of keeping minorities away from the polls. The provision provides that those states must obtain preclearance from a federal court in Washington or the DOJ before making changes to their voting laws, including redistricting.

    Even if the high court provides some gloomy news by striking Section 5 or weakening it, Rep. Lewis said there was no need to despair. Instead, liberals and progressives should be prepared to cause a bit of trouble, good trouble, as Rep. Lewis said.

    “We've come to far, we've made too much progress to go back,” Lewis said. “We must move forward. We got the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Voting Rights Act in 1965. I've always taken the position that the vote is precious. It is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have in a democratic society, and we must use it.”

    If the high court's right-wing justices successfully gut the Voting Rights Act, Lewis said we must be prepared to “fight the good fight, and never, ever give up.”

    “We must get in the way, we must get in trouble, good trouble; use the law. Use the Constitution, to bring about a non-violent revolution right here in our country. Don't give up, don't give in, our struggle is one that does not last one day or one week, or one year. It is a struggle of a life time, or many life times. We must do what we can, as Dr. King said, to create the beloved community.”

    Getting into trouble, standing in the way of right-wingers beholden to corporate America, and striving to create a smarter country. That sounds as challenging as it is inspiring.

    See Lewis' speech below or click here.

  • June 13, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

    June is every Supreme Court watcher's favorite time of year. There are always several important, potentially landmark, rulings to be handed down. This year, there are four major cases sure to make headlines: Fisher v. University of Texas on the constitutionality of race-based admission preferences; Shelby County v. Holder on the continued viability of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act; U.S. v. Windsor on the Defense of Marriage Act; and Hollingsworth v. Perry on California's ban on same-sex marriage. While no one knows exactly how the Court will rule on these controversies -- and last term's Obamacare decision reminds us that surprises are always possible -- there seems to be a good chance they will follow a distinctive pattern.

    The conservative justices will be bold and assertive, while the liberal justices will be hesitant and incremental.

    Instead of constrained, the conservative justices appear ready to declare an end to a half-century of law providing benefits for racial minorities who've suffered a long history of discrimination. In the Voting Rights Act case, the five most conservative justices on the Court -- Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito -- signaled their willingness to strike down or effectively nullify one of the most important and effective civil rights laws ever enacted. While other parts of the Voting Rights Act will remain intact, voiding Section 5, which requires pre-clearance of changes to voting rules by jurisdictions with a documented history of racial discrimination in voting, will be a severe blow to civil rights. Section 5 is a valuable prophylactic rule that does far more to prevent discrimination than the VRA's other central provision, Section 2, which directly outlaws discriminatory voting practices. Section 2 is an ex-post remedy and requires the challenger to satisfy a difficult burden of proof to win. Section 5 stopped the discrimination before it could occur. While the conservative wing of the Court may stop short of invalidating Section 5 entirely, they might just declare unconstitutional the formula used to determine which jurisdictions are covered. That would seem to be a narrow, incremental ruling but it would have the same practical result as invalidating Section 5. Given the growingly fierce GOP opposition to Section 5 and the general inability of Congress to pass anything of significance, there's almost no chance Congress will adopt a new formula.  Section 5 might remain "on the books" but it would be essentially a dead-letter.

  • April 18, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Whether Justice Antonin Scalia is toiling away in the cloistered halls of the Supreme Court or speaking before right-wing think tanks or groups of law school students he has over the years proven a knack for annoying large swaths of people. And does anyone believe Scalia cares?

    What Scalia has done is to tamp down a handful of Supreme Court reporters who for years assured us the conservative justice was the high court’s sharpest thinker and nimblest writer and witty too. Those reporters, however, have had to give up the narrative thanks in large part to Scalia’s increasingly cranky, bizarre, racially insensitive, and unnecessarily over-the-top commentary. It has also helped that a lot more people call out Scalia for his ridiculousness. He might thrill American Enterprise Institute or the Federalist Society, but others paying attention are increasingly seeing a serial offender, with a wobbly way of interpreting the Constitution.

    He’s on bit of a roll this year. In February during oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, the case involving a challenge from a largely white community in Alabama to the Voting Rights Act’s integral provision, Section 5, Scalia said the Act perpetuates racial entitlement. But Scalia couldn’t stop there; he had to add flippantly that the reason Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act was that lawmakers couldn’t bring themselves to vote against a measure with such a “wonderful name.”

    What these offensive and flippant asides have to do with the constitutional and other questions before the high court is anyone’s guess. It’s likely the acidity was all theatrics.

    The high court in Shelby will hopefully decide the case by looking at the text and history of the Constitution, in particular the 14th and 15th Amendments, which give Congress great discretion  in creating and enforcing appropriate laws to ensure that states do not discriminate in voting. Scalia’s disdain for the Voting Rights was evident, so it is likely he’ll find a way to contort so-called “originalism” to argue for gutting the law’s primary enforcement provision. (Section 5 requires states and localities, mostly in the South, with long histories of suppressing the minority vote to obtain preclearance from a federal court in Washington, D.C. or the Department of Justice before altering their voting procedures, to ensure they do not intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against minority voters.)

    This week during a talk before some law students in Washington, D.C., Scalia piled on, telling the students that Section 5 is an “embedded form of “racial preferment.”

    George Washington University law school professor Spencer Overton pushes back against Scalia’s racially charged attack on the Voting rights Act.

  • March 7, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Atiba R. Ellis, Associate Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law

    In my earlier guest blog on Shelby County, AL v. Holder, I suggested that the conservative justices of the Supreme Court would be tempted to offer a post-racialist narrative concerning the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 

    The justices did not disappoint. Justice Anthony Kennedy asked whether Alabama should remain “under the trusteeship of the United States government.” Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether “the citizens in the South are more racist than the citizens in the North.” Both of these comments implicitly ask whether the long history of race has been atoned for once and for all.

    And then there was Justice Antonin Scalia’s statement on the Voting Rights Act. In explaining the almost unanimous consensus for the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5, Scalia said:

    Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

    On one level, this quote fits the post-racial narrative. Yet Justice Scalia intended a deeper message by invoking the rhetoric of “racial entitlement.” That message is the ahistorical belief that race-conscious analysis is immoral and leads to corrupt outcomes. Establishing this concept is part of a larger post-racial agenda (as we have seen already in the affirmative action debates), and the Voting Rights Act is the latest battleground. Yet, if applied to the right to vote, it will fly in the face of the plain text of the Constitution and our democratic consensus to insure equality in voting.

  • March 6, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    A party bent on pushing economic policies that did not win the day during the 2012 elections and is beholden in general to a Tea Party antigovernment agenda is now signaling it has no concern if one of the nation’s greatest civil rights laws is gutted by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder.

    The Huffington Post reports that “a sampling of Senate Republicans” finds that many “are just as ready as he [Justice Antonin Scalia) is to toss the heart of the Voting Rights Act, its Section 5, which prevents states with a history of racial discrimination from altering their voting laws without federal approval.”

    Although apparently difficult for the sampled senators to respond to the question, many said that "Section 5’s time has come and gone, and that Southern states should be treated no differently than then the rest of the nation.”

    Senate Minority Whip John Conyer (R-Texas), The Post continued, said there should be no covered states or that all states should “not be treated differently.”

    The high court’s right-wing bloc did show through some of its questioning during oral argument in Shelby County its hostility to Section 5, even in the face of vast evidence provided in voluminous briefs before the court that some states, such as Alabama, have a far higher percentage of successful challenges to claims of racial discrimination in voting.