Controversy over Section 5

"The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable, but the Act now raises serious constitutional concerns. The pre-clearance requirement represents an intrusion into areas of state and local responsibility that is otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system."
- Chief Justice John Roberts, Majority Opinion, Northwest Austin Municipal vs Holder, 2008

Source: March 28, 2009, Wall Street Journal

Current controversy over the VRA revolves around Section 5 (pre-clearance). Opponents argue that the VRA is "a bill that is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp" (Blum). On the other hand, proponents claim that Section 5 is needed as a preventative measure. The current Shelby County vs. Holder Supreme Court case may bring changes to the scope of section 5.

Is the Voting Rights Act Doomed?

"Chief Justice John Roberts described this...as “the Elephant Whistle problem.” To summarize the allegory: A guy with a whistle around his neck walks into a bar. Another guy asks him, “Why are you wearing a whistle around your neck?” “It’s to keep away elephants,” the first responds. “How do you know it’s working?” the second asks. “Do you see any elephants around here?"

- Stephen Ansolabehere, Nathaniel Persily & Charles Stewart III, "Regional Differences in Racial Polarization in the 2012 Presidential Election: Implications for the Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act", Harvard Law Review, April 13, 2013

Shelby County vs Holder (2012)

Source: lawyerscommittee.org

"Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress’ authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution?"
- Oyez

"Justices offer split views on Voting Rights Act enforcement"
- CNN, Feb 27, 2013

"In a Texas case [Northwest Austin vs. Holder] three years ago, the court warned that the act was living on borrowed time, and by the end of this Supreme Court term, that time may run out."
- Nathaniel Persily, "Is the Voting Rights Act Doomed?", New York Times , November 15, 2012

Proponents

"Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act helps eliminate such discriminatory and harmful practices. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize the vital role this civil rights-era law plays in protecting the fundamental right to vote and ensuring equal access to voting."
- Laughlin McDonald, Director of ACLU Voting Rights Project, November 12, 2012

"we believe section 5 is relevant"
- Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Congressional Black Caucus, CSPAN, February 27, 2013

Source: NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) brief filed in the Supreme Court in Shelby County vs. Holder, January 25, 2013

Source: Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2013

"The federal government, however, contends Section 5 is less intrusive than advertised. "
- The Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2013

Opponents

"The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains"
- Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas, Oyez

" Federal oversight of polling stations and election rules primarily in the former Confederacy is too broad and thus, in some cases, itself discriminatory."
- Voting Rights Act: Why Many Southern States are Glad of Supreme Court Case, November 10, 2012

"The political forces seeking to keep Section 5 in place are not about minority voting rights - those forces want to keep power for federal judges to gerrymander legislative districts under the pretense of minority voting rights."
- Email Interview, Don Zimmerman, Vice-President, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 Austin, TX, January 2013

So What