Civil and Human Rights

CAC Reacts To Supreme Court Opinion Striking Down Part Of Iconic Voting Rights Act

SUPREME COURT PLAZA, Washington, DC – On news that the Supreme Court this morning struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Constitutional Accountability Center Civil Rights Director David Gans released the following reaction after exiting the Court:

 

“Today is a sad day for all Americans who care about protection of one our most fundamental rights, the right to vote. In striking down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Court flouts the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment, which expressly give to Congress broad powers to prevent and deter all forms of racial discrimination in voting.

 

“As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in a powerful dissent, Congress properly used these broad constitutional powers to prevent current and ongoing racial discrimination in voting concentrated in the covered jurisdictions.

 

“Justice Ginsburg further explained that Congress was not required to update the coverage forumla, bacuse the Voting Rights Act’s 15,000-page record in 2006 shows that pre-clearance continues to cover the jusrisdictions with the worst record of voting discrimination.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

CAC “friend of the court” brief in Shelby County v. Holder, arguing that the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment require the Voting Rights Act be upheld:

http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Constitutional-Accountability-Center-Shelby-Supreme-Court-Amicus.pdf

 

“How to judge the Supreme Court’s upcoming equality rulings,” Doug Kendall and David Gans, May 31, 2013: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-supreme-court-upcoming-equality-rulings-133411843.html

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Rule of Law
May 9, 2025

Dodd-Frank Authors Join Warren, Waters to Challenge CFPB Firings

Bloomberg Law
Top Democrats, Dodd-Frank namesakes cite separation of powers Amicus brief highlights CFPB’s 2008 financial crisis...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought

In National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump

In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally reorganize the federal government are constitutional...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

American Center for International Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer

In American Center for International Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to terminate en masse all of the Department...
Rule of Law
April 28, 2025

Trump’s first 100 days offer blueprint for future presidents to evade Congress

Roll Call
ANALYSIS — As he marks the first 100 days of his second term, President Donald...
Rule of Law
May 1, 2025

Bondi’s Firing of DOJ Lawyer for Lack of ‘Zealous Advocacy’ in Deportation Case Raises Concerns

Law.com
A leading legal ethics scholar warned that the U.S. attorney general’s action may “intimidate DOJ...