By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON—Conservative Supreme Court justices criticized Voting Rights Act provisions that extend federal supervision over election practices in Alabama and other states that historically discriminated against minorities, suggesting trouble for a pillar of civil-rights law.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who was defending the law, whether the government was contending that citizens in the South were more racist than those in Northern states. The chief justice was ready with statistics intended to rebut such images, telling Mr. Verrilli that Massachusetts clocked the nation's lowest ratio of black turnout to that of whites, while Mississippi had the highest.
Justice Anthony Kennedy focused on what he considered the demeaning nature of the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement, under which some localities must get approval in advance from Washington for changes to their voting laws. Justice Kennedy said preclearance effectively put some states under the "trusteeship of the United States government."
The preclearance requirement, created by Section 5 of the law, applies to nine states and portions of 13 others. The 1965 act also gives the federal government and individual voters the right to sue any local or state government for infringing voting rights after the alleged violations have occurred.
Many consider the Voting Rights Act the most effective legislation of the civil-rights era, and even conservative justices on Wednesday acknowledged its utility in breaking Jim Crow segregation laws.
In 2006, President George W. Bush signed a 25-year reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that Congress passed with near-unanimity. But while past Supreme Court rulings rejected challenges to Section 5, in a 2009 decision the justices signaled that the formula for selecting jurisdictions covered by Section 5, last updated with the 1972 election results, may not reflect subsequent progress in race relations and therefore may become an unconstitutional burden on state prerogatives to decide their own ballot regulations.
Although the 2009 decision was adopted 8-1, it was widely seen as a temporary compromise between the court's conservative and liberal wings, allowing Congress breathing room to amend the act before another challenge was filed. Congress took no action, and on Wednesday the façade of agreement in 2009 fell away to reveal sharp divisions between conservative and liberal justices.
Mr. Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, rejected claims that Section 5 was burdensome, saying the Justice Department has approved nearly all applications from jurisdictions seeking to "bail out" of the requirement. The act allows covered jurisdictions to seek exemption from preclearance requirements if they maintain a record free of discrimination for 10 years.
Moreover, Mr. Verrilli contended that there was no constitutional problem in selecting certain states for extra scrutiny. The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, gives Congress the power to protect the right to vote from racial discrimination by states. The amendment's framers clearly figured that enforcement would focus on the former Confederate states, Mr. Verrilli said.
The lawyer challenging Section 5, Bert Rein, ran into hostile fire from the court's liberal justices, who cited the high number of voting problems found in Shelby County, Ala., Mr. Rein's client.
While "some portions of the South have changed," Shelby County represents "the epitome" of the wrongs Section 5 was designed to address, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Elena Kagan agreed, adding that while covered jurisdictions hold 25% of the U.S. population, they account for 56% of voting-rights lawsuits. The "formula seems to be working pretty well" in finding the "most violations on the ground," she said.
Mr. Rein said Shelby County didn't do anything to bring itself under Section 5 but was swept into the provision by being located in Alabama, which is covered in its entirety.
He said the Alabama state Legislature has a proportionate number of black members and black voter registration today is far higher than it was half a century ago. Forcing states such as Alabama, Mississippi and Texas to comply with Section 5 today because of a formula using 1972 voter data demeans their right to "equal dignity" with states whose election laws are presumptively valid, Mr. Rein said.
"Remove the stigma of prior restraint and preclearance," Mr. Rein urged.
A decision in the case, Shelby County v. Holder, is expected before July.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét