Civil and Human Rights

RADIO (CNN): How far has America come on race?

“[The Voting Rights Act] gives both a sword and a shield to protect voting rights,” said Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel of Constitutional Accountability Center. “The sword is Section 2, which allows people who have been denied the right to vote the opportunity to bring a lawsuit, and this applies everywhere. Now, the sword is supplemented by the shield of the Voting Rights Act, which is Section 5.”

 

By Tommy Andres

 

Shelby County, Alabama (CNN) – On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will tackle one of the touchiest issues it has faced in recent history. The focus is on a key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act called Section 5.

 

The provision’s aim is to prevent discrimination at the polls by requiring nine mostly southern states and additional districts across the country to check with the federal government before making any changes to voting policies. The states must apply for approval from the federal government for anything from new voter ID laws to simply moving a polling place.

 

In 2010, Shelby County, Alabama filed suit against the federal government over Section 5, and the case has climbed to the highest court in the land.

 

Shelby County attorney Frank Ellis, Jr. says the law is outdated, violates the sovereignty of states, and brings about unnecessary costs to the communities it encompasses:

 

[2:29] “The estimates are that these 12,000 cities and counties spend as much as a billion dollars every ten years in costs directly associated with having to ask for pre-clearance.”

 

But Elizabeth Wydra, of the left-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center, says recent elections prove that disenfranchisement of minorities is still a looming problem:

 

[3:55] “In the 2012 election there were several state laws that were aimed at voter suppression. We saw this in South Carolina, there were some changes in Texas, both redistricting and voter ID laws that were put on hold through the voter ID laws that were put on hold through the Voting Rights Act. We even had state officials going on the record saying they were trying to suppress minority vote in order to get their candidate to win.”

 

The case won’t just be a ruling on one section of one of the most historic pieces of Civil Rights legislation passed in American history, it will also be a dissection of racial progress and social change.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans