Statement of Doug Kendall, President of Constitutional Accountability Center, on Today’s Supreme Court Voting Rights Case

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
 

More from

Voting Rights and Democracy
April 29, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority, Once Again, Guts the Voting Rights Act and Further Enables Racial Discrimination in Voting

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais, a...
By: David H. Gans
Access to Justice
April 28, 2026

CAC Release: In Cisco v. Doe Argument, Justices Grapple with the Scope of Liability Under Two Critical Human Rights Statutes

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Cisco Systems...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
April 27, 2026

Human Rights Suit Over Cisco Work for China Heads to Supreme Court

Bloomberg Law
CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen was interviewed by Bloomberg Law about our brief in Cisco...
Criminal Law
April 27, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Push Back Against Government’s Claim of Unrestricted Access to Cell-Phone Location Information

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chatrie v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
April 25, 2026

The Chilling Message Behind Trump’s Attack On The SPLC

Huffington Post
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was interviewed by HuffPost about Trump's attacks on the Southern...
Access to Justice
April 17, 2026

The Most Offensive Thing a Supreme Court Justice Can Do Is Be Honest About the Supreme Court

Balls & Strikes
This Week In Other Stuff We Appreciated Judges Overseeing Louisiana’s Landmark Oil Cases Have Financial...