Supreme Court knocks out part of Voting Rights Act; Voter ID now the law in Texas, AG says

A divided U.S. Supreme Court  found a key provision of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional Tuesday,  crippling one of the primary elements of federal civil rights law.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that the formula used by the Act to determine whether a jurisdiction must get federal approval for its voting laws was outdated, based on progress made to make elections fair to all.

The current formula, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act,  “is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices,” Roberts wrote.

“Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting” in the Voting Rights Act, Roberts said. Indeed, the decision did not technically invalidate Section 5 of the Act, which requires areas that have history of discrimination under the formula to get “preclearance” for changes in voting procedures.  But it casts Section 5 adrift,  with no formula for its enforcement.

The decision puts the responsibility for retooling the landmark law squarely on a polarized Congress, which Roberts said “may draft another formula based on current conditions.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, “Today’s ruling is a clear victory for federalism and the states. Texas may now implement the will of the people without being subject to outdated and unnecessary oversight and the overreach of federal power.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the 5-4 decision in the case, Shelby County (Ala.) v. Holder, means “Texas should be free from Voting Rights Act preclearance.” He said Texas’ Voter ID law “will take effect immediately.”

“Eric Holder can no longer deny Voter ID in Texas,” Abbott said triumphantly.

Conversely, U.S. Attorney General Holder cited Texas in his criticism of the ruling.

“Last year, a federal court cited the value of the Voting Rights Act in blocking the Texas congressional redistricting map on the grounds that it discriminated against Latino voters. In that case, the court noted that the parties ‘provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here,’ ” Holder said.

“The federal court that reviewed South Carolina’s photo ID law also noted the “vital function” that the Voting Rights Act played in prompting the state to change how it will implement the statute in future elections so that it would no longer disproportionately impact black voters,” Holder continued. “Without the Section 4 coverage formula, neither of these discriminatory voting changes would have been subject to review and both could have been implemented immediately. These are just two of many examples demonstrating that these problems have not been consigned to history – they continue to exist.”

Civil Rights lawyer J. Gerald Hebert,  involved in Texas redistricting and voting rights cases, called the decision “judicial activism.”

“Today’s decision is a huge setback for civil rights in our nation,” Hebert said, “specifically the nation’s minorities, who will suffer as a result of the votes of five Supreme Court justices.” Hebert said the court’s decision “declared racism dead in this country despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.”

In a fierce opposition to the decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that 40 years was not “a sufficient amount of time” for the court to strike down a key part of the law.

Quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., she said the court had done a “disservice” to the country’s commitment to justice.

She defended Congress’ ten-month review of the law before its 2006 renewal, which she said revealed “serious, widespread and intentional” discrimination. She said Congress found the rule preferable to  “bringing back old ways” of the Jim Crow era.

Roberts was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Joining Ginsburg in her dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Roberts wrote that “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

“The 15th Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future,” he wrote.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz expressed his delight with the ruling.

“Today, the Supreme Court recognized the enormous progress made toward voting equality in the United States since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. The Court rightly decided that the statutory standards used decades ago to subject democratically-elected state legislatures to second-guessing by unelected federal bureaucrats no longer survives constitutional scrutiny,” Cruz said in a statement released by his office.

“Today’s decision also validates the hard work and personal sacrifice made by my late friend and former Texas solicitor general, Greg Coleman. Greg’s tireless and brilliant advocacy on this issue no doubt paved the way for this result, and I am grateful for his principled legacy,” Cruz said.

The decision could also have a huge impact on Texas’ ongoing redistricting battle.

Rep. Pete Gallego said the decision was a “travesty for the democratic process.”

Gallego, D-Alpine, holds a perennially hard-fought congressional seat at the heart of the state’s redistricting fight.

A three-judge federal panel ruled last August that Republicans intentionally discriminated against minorities to shore up a Republican incumbent. Legal experts said today that the state could revert to the orginal redistricting map.

“The Supreme Court turned its back on the voters who have been disenfranchised,” Gallego said.

The ruling means that states now covered by Section 5 would be free to pass and implement changes to voting laws until Congress drafts new formulas to satisfy the Supreme Court, said Carl Tobias, an expert on the judiciary at the University of Richmond School of Law.

“The real questions are whether the sharply divided Congress would pass a law with a new formula, and if so, how quickly,” Tobias said. “I don’t know if there is the will in Congress to do that.”

“I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today,” President Barack Obama said in a statement. “For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.”

Obama added, “As the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists. And while today’s decision is a setback, it doesn’t represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination. I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.”

The decision was a blow to minority rights groups, which had sided with the U.S. Justice Department in its argument that despite progress, protections are still needed.

Nina Perales with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said the ruling “has far-reaching effects for Latino voters and opens the door for greater levels of discrimination against Latino voters.”

Republican leaders in Texas, like Gov. Rick Perry, Abbott and Sen. John Cornyn, have long argued that preclearance itself was unconstitutional and unfairly burdened a handful of states.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal decried the decision, saying, “The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate this key part of the Voting Rights Act – legislation that 98 Senators and 390 Representatives voted to extend in 2006 – is an example of judicial overreach at its worst.

“This decision rolls back hard-fought civil rights protections, undoes nearly 50 years of accepted law, and imperils progress even as Americans in certain counties and states face new barriers to voting.”

Calling on his colleagues in Congress to act quickly on a new formula for Voting Rights Act coverage, Blumenthal said, “Let this decision not be a setback; let it be a call to arms.”

Lawyers for Shelby County, Ala., challenged the constitutionality of preclearance, saying constitutional protections against discrimination were already granted by the 15th Amendment.

The plaintiffs argued that significant progress against voter discrimination had been made by African Americans in Alabama, who participated in elections at a higher rate than those in northern states like Massachusetts.

Alabama, like Texas, is one of nine states that must receive preclearance by the federal government to change voting procedures.

Abbott has also challenged the constitutionality of preclearance under the Act. His action came last year in an appeal to the Supreme Court of a federal court’s ruling that the state discriminated against minorities in redistricting maps for Congress, the state House and Senate. The Supreme Court has yet to act on the appeal by Abbott.

Lawyers for Shelby County and other jurisdictions covered under Section 5 argued in briefs to the Supreme Court that progress in racial relations and the success of minorities in the electoral process made the preclearance provision unneeded.

Minority groups including the NAACP, MALDEF and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus in Texas argued in briefs that protections were still needed.

David McCumber, Washington Bureau Chief