# The Voting Rights Act **URL:** \ **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:** 3
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/41 "2013-02-26T19:57:23Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s both. > > I submit that we can ensure equal voting rights for all without the VRA’s preclearance system. There might be a better way- the main question I’m asking in the OP is how would minorities’ rights be protected without the VRA, if a municipality like Kilmichael decides to cancel elections, or re-district such that all the black voters are in the same district, or enact other laws with the pretty clear intent of lessening the voting power of black people. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/42 "2013-02-26T20:10:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not long enough, apparently, since so many states and localities remain under preclearance orders. “Bailing out” of preclearance is quite difficult. It took [New Hampshire](http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121125/GJNEWS_01/121129550) of all places almost ten years to be allowed to file suit in 2010 to bail out its ten counties covered under the VRA, after another two years, the suit was successful. And N.H. only had 10 counties affected, imagine the hurdles for states where every county is included. Further, the covered states tend to be poor ones, with few resources to spare for federal lawsuits. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There might be a better way- the main question I’m asking in the OP is how would minorities’ rights be protected without the VRA, if a municipality like Kilmichael decides to cancel elections, or re-district such that all the black voters are in the same district, or enact other laws with the pretty clear intent of lessening the voting power of black people. Couldn’t they appeal to their state Election Commission / Board of Elections / Division of Elections? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/43 "2013-02-27T01:24:50Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > “Bailing out” of preclearance is quite difficult. It took [New Hampshire](http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121125/GJNEWS_01/121129550) of all places almost ten years to be allowed to file suit in 2010 to bail out its ten counties covered under the VRA, after another two years, the suit was successful. And N.H. only had 10 counties affected, imagine the hurdles for states where every county is included. Further, the covered states tend to be poor ones, with few resources to spare for federal lawsuits. I am not necessarily in favor of the law as written. However, it’s important to note that failure to lift the preclearance requirement generally means the DOJ has found some reason not to. As far as the resources issue goes, there are any number of organizations willing to help out a poor county for what it perceives as the greater good. For example, the Shelby County challenge currently before SCOTUS is being bankrolled by the right-wing “charity” [Donors Trust](http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/26/12236/news-outlets-unearth-more-donors-trust-recipients), via the Project on Fair Representation. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/44 "2013-02-27T13:24:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I am not necessarily in favor of the law as written. However, it’s important to note that failure to lift the preclearance requirement generally means the DOJ has found some reason not to. > > As far as the resources issue goes, there are any number of organizations willing to help out a poor county for what it perceives as the greater good. For example, the Shelby County challenge currently before SCOTUS is being bankrolled by the right-wing “charity” [Donors Trust](http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/26/12236/news-outlets-unearth-more-donors-trust-recipients), via the Project on Fair Representation. Sure, and over time, if the VRA stands, more and more jurisdictions will be bailed out. I just think it should be recognized that there are other factors than continued VRA violations at work in explaining why so many jurisdictions have not bailed out: inertia, lack of resources, and an onerous, time-consuming legal process. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/45 "2013-02-28T23:21:05Z")
There’s some hubbub in liberal circles over Scalia calling the VRA the “perpetuation of a racial entitlement” in oral arguments. Supposedly there was shock in the gallery upon this pronouncement, but I sorta take this report with a grain of salt. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/46 "2013-03-01T05:07:43Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Sure, and over time, if the VRA stands, more and more jurisdictions will be bailed out. I just think it should be recognized that there are other factors than continued VRA violations at work in explaining why so many jurisdictions have not bailed out: inertia, lack of resources, and an onerous, time-consuming legal process. Still, as a general rule I’d rather place undue burdens on some governments than risk having undue burdens placed back on some voters. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/47 "2013-03-01T05:34:22Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > There’s some hubbub in liberal circles over Scalia calling the VRA the “perpetuation of a racial entitlement” in oral arguments. Supposedly there was shock in the gallery upon this pronouncement, but I sorta take this report with a grain of salt. I’d be more than willing to grant the same entitlement to Justice Scalia - as long as he is willing to meet the eligibility requirement and lose his vote for a hundred years first. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/48 "2013-03-01T05:44:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Still, as a general rule I’d rather place undue burdens on some governments than risk having undue burdens placed back on some voters. Exactly. How much of an inconvenience is it for these local governments anyway? Even if there’s a little overkill in the restrictions, if we can unconstitutionally restrict the rights of individuals in order to protect the state from terrorism, then surely we can put the relatively minor restriction of preclearance on local governments in order to protect the very basis of our Democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/49 "2013-03-01T13:23:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Still, as a general rule I’d rather place undue burdens on some governments than risk having undue burdens placed back on some voters. That’s fine unless it’s your government that’s burdened, and stigmatized as racially discriminatory because of policies in place in 1964. Then, it stings a little. > [@davidm](#): > > Exactly. How much of an inconvenience is it for these local governments anyway? > > Even if there’s a little overkill in the restrictions, if we can unconstitutionally restrict the rights of individuals in order to protect the state from terrorism, then surely we can put the relatively minor restriction of preclearance on local governments in order to protect the very basis of our Democracy. Then amend the VRA to apply to all jurisdictions in the United States, if you want its protections to apply to everyone. Don’t single out a handful of them because of what was done 49 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/50 "2013-03-01T13:46:20Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s fine unless it’s your government that’s burdened, and stigmatized as racially discriminatory because of policies in place in 1964. Then, it stings a little. Which changes nothing in what I said. I rather the government had its feelings hurt than people. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Then amend the VRA to apply to all jurisdictions in the United States, if you want its protections to apply to everyone. Don’t single out a handful of them because of what was done 49 years ago. It does apply to all jurisdictions. It’s just that most jurisdictions haven’t triggered its effects. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/51 "2013-03-01T14:17:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Which changes nothing in what I said. I rather the government had its feelings hurt than people. It’s not just the actual local bureaucrats, it’s a stigma for the entire state / township / county and its residents. > [@Little Nemo](#): > > It does apply to all jurisdictions. It’s just that most jurisdictions haven’t triggered its effects. > [@VRA](#): > > (b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a state which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percentum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964. I was referring to preclearance specifically. It was applied to jurisdictions based on the November 1964 election. The “covered jurisdictions” then face a lengthy and difficult process of “bailing out” of preclearance. If preclearance has such undeniable and universal value, then why not remove the statute tying it to the 1964 election, and make all jurisdictions preclear? As I said, though, things are looking up. New Hampshire just bailed out entirely in December of 2012, and [Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Austin_Municipal_Utility_District_No._1_v._Holder) in 2009 made it possible for more political subdivisions, such as a utility district, to bail out. That ruling also noted that (as of 2009) “since 1982, only 17 jurisdictions—out of the more than 12,000 covered political subdivisions—have successfully bailed out of the Act.” This is evidence that bailing out is too difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/52 "2013-03-01T14:57:43Z")
Or that preclearance jurisdictions are still disenfranchising minority voters. Those questions are best left to the legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/53 "2013-03-01T15:10:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If preclearance has such undeniable and universal value, then why not remove the statute tying it to the 1964 election, and make all jurisdictions preclear? This seems completely reasonable. Stripped of all the niceties, the concentration on the Usual Suspects was punitive (and totally deserved). But there should be a statute of limitations on regional stupidity. Extend it to everyone. There are probably still bad apples among the slave states, but (1) not all, and (2) not exclusively. Has this been argued legally, or is all the effort just to duck out of the requirements? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/54 "2013-03-01T15:11:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Or that preclearance jurisdictions are still disenfranchising minority voters. I’m not saying that never happens, but in 11,983 of 12,000 jurisdictions? Seems far-fetched. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > Those questions are best left to the legislature. Bailing out of preclearance is actually handled by the [District Court for the District of Columbia](http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php), or the Attorney General. The legislature is not involved. > [@](#): > > A jurisdiction seeking to “bailout” must seek a declaratory judgment from a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. > [@](#): > > The Attorney General is also authorized to consent to an entry of judgment granting the “bailout” if the Attorney General concludes after investigation that the jurisdiction has complied with all of these requirements. Here’s the bailout requirements: > [@](#): > > The successful “bailout” applicant must demonstrate that during the past ten years: > •No test or device has been used within the jurisdiction for the purpose or with the effect of voting discrimination; > •All changes affecting voting have been reviewed under Section 5 prior to their implementation; > •No change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a Section 5 declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia district court; > •There have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination; > •There have been no consent decrees or agreements that resulted in the abandonment of a discriminatory voting practice; > •There are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and > •Federal examiners have not been assigned; > •There have been no violations of the Constitution or federal, state or local laws with respect to voting discrimination unless the jurisdiction establishes that any such violations were trivial, were promptly corrected, and were not repeated. > > Before being allowed to “bailout”, the jurisdiction must have eliminated those voting procedures and methods of elections that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process. It also must demonstrate that it has made constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons seeking to register and vote and expand opportunities for voter participation, such as opportunities for registration and voting, and to appoint minority officials throughout the jurisdiction and at all levels of the stages of the electoral process. The jurisdiction must also present evidence of minority electoral participation. > > In addition, these requirements apply to all governmental units within the geographical boundaries of the jurisdiction. Thus, if a county is seeking to “bailout”, it must establish each criteria for every city, town, school district, or other entity within its boundaries. > > The jurisdiction seeking “bailout” must publicize the intended commencement and any proposed settlement of the action; any aggrieved party may intervene in the litigation. After the granting of a declaratory judgment, the statute requires a ten-year “recapture” period. During this time, the district court may reopen proceedings should the jurisdiction engage in any conduct that would have prevented the jurisdiction from bailing out in the first instance. Under such circumstances, the district court will review the evidence and determine whether to reinstate coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/55 "2013-03-01T15:16:38Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Bailing out of preclearance is actually handled by the [District Court for the District of Columbia](http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php), or the Attorney General. The legislature is not involved. No, I mean the question of whether the preclearance procedure is still necessary is best left to the legislature. As in, if you want to get rid of it, go ask Congress. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying that never happens, but in 11,983 of 12,000 jurisdictions? Seems far-fetched. Right, but SCOTUS can’t overturn the VRA on those grounds. They can overturn the individual DOJ and DC Circuit decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/56 "2013-03-01T15:16:48Z")
> [@](#): > > No test or device has been used within the jurisdiction for the purpose or with the effect of voting discrimination; So, that crosses off every state with voter suppression measures, for starters… Really, there can be no harm in applying all those requirements across everyone. It seems to me that the threats to Voting Rights now no longer exclusively emanate from the south and we should guard against them everywhere. Sorry, Pennsylvania. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/57 "2013-03-01T15:21:15Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > This seems completely reasonable. > > Stripped of all the niceties, the concentration on the Usual Suspects was punitive (and totally deserved). But there should be a statute of limitations on regional stupidity. Extend it to everyone. There are probably still bad apples among the slave states, but (1) not all, and (2) not exclusively. There was, section 5 of the VRA (the preclearance part) was set to expire after five years. However, “Congress reauthorized the Act in 1970 (for 5 years), 1975 (for 7 years), and 1982 (for 25 years); each reauthorization was litigated as unconstitutional, and each time the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. Most recently, in 2006, Congress extended §5 for yet another 25 years.” A temporary measure has been extended beyond the point of reason. Also, the “slave states”? That would include Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware, you know. > [@Kepler1571](#): > > Has this been argued legally, or is all the effort just to duck out of the requirements? The most recent case that reached SCOTUS and has been ruled on that I’m aware of is [Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Austin_Municipal_Utility_District_No._1_v._Holder), in which the Court declined to rule upon the Constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/58 "2013-03-01T15:25:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, I mean the question of whether the preclearance procedure is still necessary is best left to the legislature. As in, if you want to get rid of it, go ask Congress. Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. Congress just extended the VRA for another 25 years in 2006, so that’s not a favorable sign. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > Right, but SCOTUS can’t overturn the VRA on those grounds. They can overturn the individual DOJ and DC Circuit decisions. They could overturn section 5 as being unconstitutional, Clarence Thomas’ dissent in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder argued exactly that. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/59 "2013-03-01T15:26:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Also, the “slave states”? That would include Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware, you know. And had New York, New Jersey or Delaware used prohibited methods of disenfranchisement, they could have been added to the list of covered jurisdictions under the procedure described in Section 2 of the Act. > [@](#): > > They could overturn section 5 as being unconstitutional, Clarence Thomas’ dissent in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder argued exactly that. Right, but they can’t do it just because almost nobody has bailed out. They _can_ do it because Congress did not reauthorize the act on the basis of an existing record of minority disenfranchisement, as is being argued here, since the 14th Amendment doesn’t give Congress prophylactic power. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/60 "2013-03-01T15:35:37Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s fine unless it’s your government that’s burdened, and stigmatized as racially discriminatory because of policies in place in 1964. Then, it stings a little. > > Then amend the VRA to apply to all jurisdictions in the United States, if you want its protections to apply to everyone. Don’t single out a handful of them because of what was done 49 years ago. _Every_ jurisdiction is covered by voting rights laws. No one can have a poll tax or a literacy test, for example. The preclearance restriction is there to protect voters in areas that have historically attempted to suppress them. We can’t assume that a local culture has changed simply because some arbitrary amount of time has passed. Prejudices can be passed from generation to generation. Jurisdictions can bail out by showing good behavior for 10 years. Who should the government be more concerned about, those whose franchise may be at risk or those who feel a little sting? Some hurt feelings may simply be the price that has to be payed in order to keep us from back sliding on this. I’m pretty sure that those who couldn’t vote felt more than just a little sting. I’ll add that I believe that it’s more than just a coincidence that it’s mostly Republicans who are fighting the VRA while at the same time doing things like instituting voter ID laws and shortening early voting times throughout the country. Does anyone believe that they won’t attempt to institute those things in the currently protected jurisdictions if preclearance is overturned? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160.md?page=4)