Civil and Human Rights

Constitutional Accountability Center Condemns SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Ruling

By Catherine Thompson

 

The Constitutional Accountability Center on Tuesday condemned the Supreme Court’s striking of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which the think tank said prevents Congress from exercising its rightful power to stop the practice of racial discrimination in voting.

 

“Today is a sad day for all Americans who care about protection of one our most fundamental rights, the right to vote,” said David Gans, the center’s civil rights director, in a press release. “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,” he continued. “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 formula, because the Voting Rights Act’s 15,000-page record in 2006 shows that pre-clearance continues to cover the jurisdictions with the worst record of voting discrimination.”

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 23, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.