FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 29, 2009
CONTACT: Doug Kendall, 202 296-6889, x3
Elizabeth Wydra, 202 296-6889, x6

Today’s argument was shockingly devoid of any real consideration of the Supreme Court’s proper role in reviewing legislation passed by Congress to enforce the right to vote.

Instead, some of the justices combed the 15,000-page record assembled by Congress in support of the Voting Rights Act of 2006 for minute flaws, showing a willingness to second-guess Congress that sharply departs from the text and history of the Constitution. As demonstrated by Constitutional Accountability Center’s brief in this case, the text and history of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments demand that the Court give broad discretion to Congress in determining what laws are “appropriate” to secure the right to vote free from discrimination. Here, Congress held 21 hearings, interviewed more than 90 witnesses, and found that jurisdictions required to pre-clear had engaged in thousands of discriminatory electoral practices between 1982 and 2006. This evidence is more than sufficient to support Congress’ extension of the Voting Rights Act. Under the standard of deference required by the Constitution, the Court should resoundingly affirm the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.

Read CAC’s brief

Read analysis from Text & History

###

Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) is a think tank, law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution’s text and history. CAC filed a brief in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder in favor of appellees, which is available on our website, www.theusconstitution.org