Supreme Court’s voting rights ruling throws fuel on a new fire

Fifty years ago this month, Medgar Evers arrived at his home near Jackson, Miss., in the early morning hours of June 12. The evening before, President John F. Kennedy had delivered his landmark televised address to the nation, calling on Congress to pass legislation ensuring the civil and voting rights of black Americans. It was a tumultuous year — culminating in the seminal march on Washington later that summer and Kennedy’s assassination in November.

Out of the ashes of 1963, Congress, under a new president, did pass a Civil Rights Act in 1964, and in 1965, the Voting Rights Act.

This week, in striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court invoked that ugly history — declaring it an artifact of a bygone era, rendering the act irrelevant to the way voting laws are administered today. A crowing Chief Justice Roberts took pains to point out that Philadelphia, Miss., and Selma, Ala., two of the hot spots during 1964’s “freedom summer,” are today governed by black mayors. “Problems remain in these states and others,” he said, “but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our nation has made great strides.”

Also, did you notice that the guy in the Oval Office is black? Throw in the majority’s references to high voting levels among minorities in 2012, and the court’s decision amounts to blaming black voters for the demise of the signal accomplishment of the Civil Rights Movement.

Clearly, America has changed considerably since the 1960s. No longer is racial terror the order of the day in the southern enclaves that barred black people from exercising their citizenship, by law or by force, all those years ago.

And yet, Barack Obama’s election and reelection as president exposed deep, continuing fault lines of race, region and generation in our country, with white, rural and southern Americans, and black, brown, young and urban voters increasingly lining up on opposite sides of the ideological fence.

The tension between older “tea party” America and younger, browner America courses through every national debate and every vote in Congress and in our legislatures — on healthcare, programs for the poor, immigration and guns.

And it courses through our electoral politics, too — not in theory, but in fact.

Before a single vote was cast in the last presidential election, GOP governors and legislatures, from Florida to Wisconsin, studied ways to break the cycle of generational and racial drift toward Democrats. Their methods were not vintage 1960s, but tailored to the modern age. Voter ID laws, limitations to early voting that choked off the “souls to the polls” Sunday before Election Day — traditionally favored by black churches — demands for proof of citizenship and more. Combined, they represented a full-throated attack on the kinds of voters Republicans fear they can’t woo with their conservative ideology, so they’d just as soon keep them home.

Groups like True the Vote organized to fight fictional in-person voter fraud, including by physically intimidating voters at the polls. Make them feel “like they’re driving with the police following you” was how True the Vote’s national elections coordinator Bill Ouren put it.

The restrictions didn’t need to be coded by race: They were designed with the full knowledge that young and minority voters, students, the disabled, the poor and the elderly are far less likely than white voters to possess the kinds of identification that would be required at the polls. In Texas, a gun license was good enough. A student ID was not.

Now, thanks to the court, Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, and certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, no longer need federal assent to enact their voting laws. Those who feel victimized by those laws will have to find their remedies in the courts. Because while the Roberts court claims Congress is free to legislate new formulas for divining which states and counties would restrict the right to vote, we all know Congress won’t.

Without Section 4, which sets the rules for which states require preclearance, Section 5, the preclearance requirement itself, has no meaning. The malevolent Clarence Thomas’ sneering call to rid the country of that section, too, isn’t required. Our most ironic justice gets to have his way without another 5-4 vote.

2014 will be our first national election unbridled by the Voting Rights Act that emerged out of the horrors of 1963. We have indeed entered a post-civil rights era, where the protection of minority rights is deemed by Justice Antonin Scalia to be “racial entitlements,” and the court legislates in place of Congress, to “protect” Old America from the rest of us.

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  • In My Opinion

    When journalism is too good to be true

    When a Gallup poll this summer showed that 80 percent of Americans have little faith in the news media, there was a good deal of consternation in U.S. newsrooms. Some of it came from me. We’re used to getting called liars by the hucksters and connivers and knaves we write about. But it’s pretty frustrating to hear that readers don’t trust us, either.



    Past looms large in Islamist outlook

    The radical Islamists want to kill Pope Francis, according to the Italian daily Il Tempo. I’m not surprised. The permanent enemy of these anachronistic characters is Christianity, not the Jews.


    Finding justice on racial issues through the ballot

    The eyes of America remain focused on Ferguson, Missouri, gripped by the aftermath of Michael Brown’s death. The anguish of Ferguson — from the murder of an unarmed young person of color, to the lack of accountability fueled by a sheer disregard for black lives — is all too familiar for Florida.

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category