# The Voting Rights Act
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 23, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160 "2013-02-23T13:25:23Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/1 "2013-02-23T13:25:23Z")
The Voting Rights Act is being defended in front of the Supreme Court. Even in the last decade or two, there have been [instances of pretty obvious attempts to disenfranchise black people](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilmichael,_Mississippi#Controversy). If significant parts of the Voting Rights Act are found to be unconstitutional, what will be the recourse of southern black voters if efforts like that in Kilmichael MS or something similar to poll taxes/voting tests are put into place again?
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/2 "2013-02-23T15:09:58Z")
They could try to enact new legislation that would meet the Court’s standards. Or they could try to bypass the court and enact a Right to Vote amendment.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/3 "2013-02-23T15:51:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> If significant parts of the Voting Rights Act are found to be unconstitutional, what will be the recourse of southern black voters if efforts like that in Kilmichael MS or something similar to poll taxes/voting tests are put into place again?
Poll taxes would still be unconstitutional. Poll taxes are unconstitutional not because of the Voting Rights Act, but because the Twenty-Fourth Amendment says:
> [@](#):
>
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Similarly, voting tests are prohibited by _West Virginia v. Barnette_, which does not rest on the Voting Rights Act.
So I guess the recourse would be to point to the Constitution and the relevant Supreme Court caselaw.
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/4 "2013-02-23T16:04:18Z")
The Voting Rights Act has always been a prickly issue, I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I like to think I’m informed on constitutional history. I’ve always thought the Voting Rights Act might, in part, be unconstitutional. At the very least I think it rides a close line.
But it’s one of those rare issues where something can be unconstitutional, but necessary and proper (I think a lot of FDR and Lincoln’s actions in times of major war fell under this category.)
It would not shock me if a court, especially one still fairly heavily weighted to strict constructionists versus earlier courts, might strike down parts of the VRA. But I’m not really sure that’d be a good thing for the country. Eventually the VRA should be unnecessary but I don’t think we’re quite there yet. I kind of suspect this is one of those issues where maybe the SCOTUS realizes this, and even though I’m willing to bet some of the current justices might think the VRA is unconstitutional in part I would not be surprised if they decided to uphold it in any case.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/5 "2013-02-23T16:40:16Z")
What is the basis for the challenge to the Act? Exceeds federal authority to regulate state actions?
---
### Author:  [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/6 "2013-02-23T18:29:40Z")
From what I’ve heard the only part being challenged is a provision requring that certain areas of the country which restricted black voting rights in the past get approval before changing any voting rules. And its hard for me to see both Roberts and Kennedy to vote to strike it down personally. Although I’m curious as to how Clarence Thomas might vote.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/7 "2013-02-23T18:40:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Poll taxes would still be unconstitutional. Poll taxes are unconstitutional not because of the Voting Rights Act, but because the Twenty-Fourth Amendment says:
>
> Similarly, voting tests are prohibited by _West Virginia v. Barnette_, which does not rest on the Voting Rights Act.
>
> So I guess the recourse would be to point to the Constitution and the relevant Supreme Court caselaw.
Thanks- what about what happened in Kilmichael MS- or redistricting meant to minimize black voters’ influence, or things like that?
---
### Author:  [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/8 "2013-02-23T20:49:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Thanks- what about what happened in Kilmichael MS- or redistricting meant to minimize black voters’ influence, or things like that?
As opposed to redistricting meant to maximize black voters’ influence? Seriously… or are/were minority majority districts a myth.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/9 "2013-02-23T23:42:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Poll taxes would still be unconstitutional. Poll taxes are unconstitutional not because of the Voting Rights Act, but because the Twenty-Fourth Amendment says:
>
> Similarly, voting tests are prohibited by _West Virginia v. Barnette_, which does not rest on the Voting Rights Act.
>
> So I guess the recourse would be to point to the Constitution and the relevant Supreme Court caselaw.
Okay, you’ve identified two specific issues that were problems resolved without the Voting Rights Act. But what’s your point on the act itself?
Are you saying that there were no significant voting-related problems in 1965 so the Voting Rights Act wasn’t needed? Are you saying that there were significant voting-related problems in 1965 but other existing legislation would have handled it? Are you saying the Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965 but is no longer needed?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/10 "2013-02-23T23:56:25Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Okay, you’ve identified two specific issues that were problems resolved without the Voting Rights Act. But what’s your point on the act itself?
>
> Are you saying that there were no significant voting-related problems in 1965 so the Voting Rights Act wasn’t needed? Are you saying that there were significant voting-related problems in 1965 but other existing legislation would have handled it? Are you saying the Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965 but is no longer needed?
I’m replying to the two specific issues that were raised in the OP.
The question of whether the Voting Rights Act is needed is certainly not what any reviewing court should be asking itself. That’s a question for the legislature, and they’ve answered that question in the affirmative.
The reviewing Court does not get to position itself as a super-legislature, and decide whether the Act is REALLY needed.
It should be asking if the Act is constitutional. Nothing more.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/11 "2013-02-24T04:25:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I’m replying to the two specific issues that were raised in the OP.
The OP asked about _“efforts like that in Kilmichael MS or something similar to poll taxes/voting tests”_. It’s pretty obvious he’s asking about any means of disenfranchising black voters not just the three specific examples he gave.
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The question of whether the Voting Rights Act is needed is certainly not what any reviewing court should be asking itself. That’s a question for the legislature, and they’ve answered that question in the affirmative.
>
> The reviewing Court does not get to position itself as a super-legislature, and decide whether the Act is REALLY needed.
>
> It should be asking if the Act is constitutional. Nothing more.
This board isn’t the reviewing Court. We’re allowed to discuss the broader aspects of the issue here.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/12 "2013-02-24T15:37:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> The OP asked about _“efforts like that in Kilmichael MS or something similar to poll taxes/voting tests”_. It’s pretty obvious he’s asking about any means of disenfranchising black voters not just the three specific examples he gave.This board isn’t the reviewing Court. We’re allowed to discuss the broader aspects of the issue here.
You’re allowed to discuss all sorts of things. But the OP’s opening line is:
> [@](#):
>
> The Voting Rights Act is being defended in front of the Supreme Court.
That’s kind if what I was interested in discussing. If you want to discuss other stuff, feel free.
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/13 "2013-02-24T15:41:09Z")
Then how about this. Voting rights are protected by the 14th Amendment through loss of representationin the House. Why is a further law needed?
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/14 "2013-02-24T15:44:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> That’s kind if what I was interested in discussing. If you want to discuss other stuff, feel free.
Again, I think you’re taking some passages from of the OP out of context and missing the greater point. The OP mentioned the Voting Rights Act was under review but only as background. His question was _“If significant parts of the Voting Rights Act are found to be unconstitutional, what will be the recourse of southern black voters if efforts like that in Kilmichael MS or something similar to poll taxes/voting tests are put into place again?”_
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/15 "2013-02-24T15:46:09Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Then how about this. Voting rights are protected by the 14th Amendment through loss of representation in the House. Why is a further law needed?
People count towards the amount of representation even if they don’t or can’t vote.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/16 "2013-02-24T15:56:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Again, I think you’re taking some passages from of the OP out of context and missing the greater point. The OP mentioned the Voting Rights Act was under review but only as background. His question was _“If significant parts of the Voting Rights Act are found to be unconstitutional, what will be the recourse of southern black voters if efforts like that in Kilmichael MS or something similar to poll taxes/voting tests are put into place again?”_
Thank you- you have correctly interpreted my intentions for the thread. I’m not asking if the VRA is constitutional, or if it will be supported or overturned by the Supreme Court, but if it is overturned then what the recourse would be for people who may be victims of future attempts at disenfranchisement.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/17 "2013-02-24T16:22:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Thank you- you have correctly interpreted my intentions for the thread. I’m not asking if the VRA is constitutional, or if it will be supported or overturned by the Supreme Court, but if it is overturned then what the recourse would be for people who may be victims of future attempts at disenfranchisement.
The same options that are available to every single person in the country seeking laws that assist their preferred outcome. Lobby Congress, create political narratives that favor their outcome, march in protest, go on hunger strikes.
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/18 "2013-02-24T16:57:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> People count towards the amount of representation even if they don’t or can’t vote.
Not what I said.
[QUOTE=Amendment XIV, Section 2]
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. **But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state**.
[/QUOTE]
So if a group is denied their right to vote the state can lose representatives.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/19 "2013-02-24T19:39:40Z")
Practically speaking, that provision is a dead-letter. What political party would go about de-franchising a state, even in compliance with that provision? The other party would have a field day, arguing that it’s an assault on democracy, etc.
---
### Author:  [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/20 "2013-02-24T20:40:38Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> Practically speaking, that provision is a dead-letter. What political party would go about de-franchising a state, even in compliance with that provision? The other party would have a field day, arguing that it’s an assault on democracy, etc.
Why would it have to be a political party? Couldn’t the disenfranchised citizens go to court and argue that if they can’t vote then representation should be reduced accordingly? This wouldn’t require the backing of a political party.
You can argue about whether or not this would be a wise course of action, but I can imagine someone might do it to raise public awareness of the issue. “If you’re going to curtail our voting rights, then we’re going to curtail your representation”.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160.md?page=2)