Civil and Human Rights

Supporters Brace for Defeat on Voting Act

Sometime in the next few weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, a frontal challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act. Under that section of the law, changes in election procedures in covered jurisdictions that might affect minority voting power must be submitted to the Justice Department for approval.

The Voting Rights Act got roughed up at oral argument. So supporters of the law are bracing for defeat, and earlier this week the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center held a telephone panel discussion to discuss how the case might turn out.

The center also released a new report on the history of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment — a history that it claims supports broad congressional power to enforce voting rights.

The panelists voiced strong pessimism about the outcome of the pending case, and previewed how they’ll react if the decision is as bad as they fear it will be. If the contested provision of the act is struck down, the center’s president, Douglas Kendall, said, it will be a ‘starkly activist decision’ because the court will be trumping clear congressional authority.

Former Judge Patricia Wald of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the law is ‘an absolutely fundamental aspect of voter protection’ that is still necessary even after an African-American has been elected president.

David Gans, author of the center’s report, said a ruling against the law ‘should frame this summer’s confirmation hearing’ for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar said the Voting Rights Act ‘has the blood of martyrs on it,’ and is ‘one of the most important statutes in world history.’ Before the arguments, Amar said he thought the court ‘could not be so obtuse’ as to strike the law down. But when he heard the audio of the arguments, he said, ‘My heart sank.’

The dismissive tone of several justices about the law was unnerving, Amar said. ‘It really did shake me.’

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 27, 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.