By Daryl C. Hannah - Mar 10, 2009
Keywords: discrimination, affirmative action, racism, voting, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Supreme Court, Black
A split U.S. Supreme Court has limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, saying only districts where Blacks are in the voting-age minority are protected by the law.
The justices, voting 5-4, said officials should not consider race when drawing district lines for county boards, city councils and school districts, a decision Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the majority opinion, says speaks to the true intent of the Voting Rights Act.
"Racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history," Kennedy said. But the goal of the act, he continued, was to "hasten the waning of racism in American politics," rather than "entrench racial differences."
The issue at hand is the 1965 law that made voting a reality for Blacks. Until its passage, states and counties used egregious literacy and memorization tests and intimidation to hinder Blacks from registering to vote and actually casting ballots. In 1982, Congress revised the act to say states may not thwart voters' chance to elect the representative of their choice.
Monday's decision, which came on the heels of the 44th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery voting-rights march, settled a dispute in North Carolina where state officials sought to draw a "cross-over" election district to give Black candidates a realistic chance of winning.
State lawmakers believed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required them to do so.
Kennedy said the state's lawmakers had misread the Voting Rights Act of 1965, saying the law "only applies when a geographically compact group of minority voters could form a majority in a single-member district."
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the majority but did not adopt Kennedy's reasoning. Thomas said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not protect districts in which Blacks represented a clear majority.
In opposition, Associate Justice David H. Souter--writing for himself--along with Associate Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, said the decision could cause more racial polarization and would require states "to pack Black voters" into districts in which Blacks make up the majority, "contracting the number of districts where racial minorities are having success in transcending racial divisions."
But North Carolina isn't the only state battling the meaning of the Voting Rights Act. In April, the Supreme Court will hear another provision of the Voting Rights Act and may require 16 states with a history of racial discrimination to get approval before changing the way elections are held.
Click here to read more from The Los Angeles Times.
Click here to read more from Reuters.
Click here to read more from The New York Times.
Readers' Comments
In this case I actually agree with the Majority decision. Just as we should not have considered race when the district lines were drawn in the 1960's, we should not consider race in the 2000's doing so would not only grant preferential treatment to blacks, but it would also set a precedent for other minority groups which would allow them to unfairly sway elections. Outcomes of elections are supposed to represent the majority's wishes. Which is the exact reason why President Obama was able to defeat a very popular Senator Clinton in the Democratic primary. While the intent of the case may have been well-intended, an alternate ruling would have given opportunity for elections to be stolen by minority groups (I use the term minority groups to apply to ANY minority group mainly ideological).
.