# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/81 "2013-03-01T17:02:08Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Right, I meant more that Supreme Court justices aren’t party to efforts by the party that nominated them to re-brand their image, and won’t change their judicial opinions accordingly. Absolutely right. Justices don’t (and shouldn’t) tailor their opinions to fit what a party wants to accomplish. I just find it amusing that after multiple retreats and attempts to re-brand as a more minority-friendly party, one of the first news items of actual political significance (I consider the sequester a bit more of a warm-up to the real budget fights) will be the invalidation of one of the central achievements of the Civil Rights movement entirely at the hands of GOP-nominated justices. Irony. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I think you’re correct here. I remember how in 2006, when the VRA was up for renewal again, [rumor had it](http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/voting.asp) that if Congress didn’t renew the VRA, black people would then immediately be legally unable to vote. Which is probably one of the reasons it was unanimously re-approved. And why Scalia has a bit of a point when he says it won’t be disapproved for a very long time. But that’s no reason to declare a law unconstitutional, IMO. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/82 "2013-03-01T17:04:36Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > This board cracks me up. Let me get this straight: 200 years of slavery, 100 years of legal segregation and disfranchisement, followed by 47 years of of “freedom” (and I use that word loosely), and we’re supposed to trust the South and conservatives to play nice when they have been placing their foot on the back of minorities’ neck since they arrived on these shores? LOL! It’s absurd and it’s even more absurd that the Supreme Court of the-fucking-United States is debating whether the Act is constitutional. > > White people reneged on the Civil Rights Movement - first it was Affirmative Action (which is now destroyed) and now it’s the Voting Rights Act. What’s next? Equal employment? Housing? Pay? Here’s a real question for all of you: Why bother pretending MLK dream was achievable and make legislation to that end but quickly start dismantling it a few years after MLK dies? This effort (as well as previous efforts) is nothing but a bold-face attempt to roll back the gains of the Civil Rights Movement in order to stifle the power of minorities at the ballot box. > > - Honesty I agree with everything you said, with one nitpick. _ **Som** e_ white people reneged, not all. As a white man i, along with many others, have not agreed to renege on any of that and I will keep speaking out and voting accordingly. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/83 "2013-03-01T17:04:50Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > The people in power who were interested in denying minorities the right to vote are. Are you under the impression that people in power lost interest in denying minorities the right to vote? '[Cause, dude, no](http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/electoralrules-0407.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/84 "2013-03-01T17:09:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are you under the impression that people in power lost interest in denying minorities the right to vote? '[Cause, dude, no](http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/electoralrules-0407.pdf). You realize, that even though that paper was written in '07, that they are using the 1960’s as a baseline for their documentation? Or did I not read it all right? As long as politicians have the right to gerrymander, or re-district the exact types of ‘discrimination’ will continue to happen. What I take issue with is the fact that it is labeled as racially motivated. I’m sure on board that it is politically motivated. ---
**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, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/85 "2013-03-01T17:09:09Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Absolutely right. Justices don’t (and shouldn’t) tailor their opinions to fit what a party wants to accomplish. > > I just find it amusing that after multiple retreats and attempts to re-brand as a more minority-friendly party, one of the first news items of actual political significance (I consider the sequester a bit more of a warm-up to the real budget fights) will be the invalidation of one of the central achievements of the Civil Rights movement entirely at the hands of GOP-nominated justices. Irony. Ok, I get your meaning now. Given that the court hasn’t ruled on [Shelby County v. Holder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder) yet, it is a bit premature to assume that _ **if** _ Section 5 of the VRA is overturned, it’ll be entirely at the hands of the GOP-nominated judges. It could be 9-0, or 8-1, for all we know. ---
**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 2, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/86 "2013-03-02T13:56:41Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > These and comments like these are the primary reason that racism will never die. > It isn’t the fact that racism doesn’t still exist, I imagine that it does but its getting smaller and less effective. > > This is plain and simple punishment of everyone for a crime ,people long dead, committed. You are the cause of the perpetuation of this thinking. You will NEVER make amends for things long past. Fix it and move forward. > > You may bring up the past as long and as often as you want, as long as it propels us all forward but that isn’t how the past gets brought up or used. It gets used as a bludgeoning tool to keep harping about how bad someone once had it. > Times have changed, the ones who keep looking for some method of redress or compensation for something other people did, a long long time ago, are misplacing all that energy. I’m not just talking about the past. I’m talking about the present and the future. In the past, we tried leaving racism alone in hopes it would decline on its own. It didn’t work. Racism, left unchallenged, is self-perpetuating. The reason racism is “getting smaller and less effective” is because most people have now decided to actively fight racism. We want racism to keep declining so we’re going to keep fighting it. The amount of racism we’re prepared to accept is zero. ---
**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 2, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/87 "2013-03-02T15:38:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m not just talking about the past. I’m talking about the present and the future. > > In the past, we tried leaving racism alone in hopes it would decline on its own. It didn’t work. Racism, left unchallenged, is self-perpetuating. > > The reason racism is “getting smaller and less effective” is because most people have now decided to actively fight racism. We want racism to keep declining so we’re going to keep fighting it. The amount of racism we’re prepared to accept is zero. I endorse your remarks, and will add that the VRA Section 5, with its focus on a few states and counties, perpetuates the idea that racism is a Southern problem, when in fact it’s a human problem. The convenient whipping-boy of the South distracts from this, and slows progress in confronting and overcoming racism. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/88 "2013-03-02T23:31:09Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > This board cracks me up. Let me get this straight: 200 years of slavery, 100 years of legal segregation and disfranchisement, followed by 47 years of of “freedom” (and I use that word loosely), and we’re supposed to trust the South and conservatives to play nice when they have been placing their foot on the back of minorities’ neck since they arrived on these shores? LOL! It’s absurd and it’s even more absurd that the Supreme Court of the-fucking-United States is debating whether the Act is constitutional. > > White people reneged on the Civil Rights Movement - first it was Affirmative Action (which is now destroyed) and now it’s the Voting Rights Act. What’s next? Equal employment? Housing? Pay? Here’s a real question for all of you: Why bother pretending MLK dream was achievable and make legislation to that end but quickly start dismantling it a few years after MLK dies? This effort (as well as previous efforts) is nothing but a bold-face attempt to roll back the gains of the Civil Rights Movement in order to stifle the power of minorities at the ballot box. > > - Honesty How has “affirmative action” been “destroyed”? Perhaps it’s been modified to help people like white women or Asian and Hispanic immigrants it wasn’t intended for, but it’s hardly been destroyed. Beyond that, when the grandchildren of slaveowners get defeated by the grandchildren of slaves I think MLK would be quite happy. That doesn’t mean there will never be an end to racism or that it’s not a problem to work on in the US or elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/89 "2013-03-03T01:31:25Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > How has “affirmative action” been “destroyed”? > > Perhaps it’s been modified to help people like white women or Asian and Hispanic immigrants it wasn’t intended for, but it’s hardly been destroyed. See the _Bakke_ and _Bollinger_ cases as well as the upcoming _Fisher_ case. In the Bollinger case, for example, one of the Justices flat-out said that in 25 years Affirmative Action would no longer be needed while, at the same time, striking down the law school admissions policy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/90 "2013-03-03T04:34:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I guess the recourse would be to point to the Constitution and the relevant Supreme Court caselaw. Which doesn’t do you a whole lot of good the day after the election. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s both. > > I submit that we can ensure equal voting rights for all without the VRA’s preclearance system. Yeah, but it helps. We should probably stick any jurisdiction that violates section 2 into section 5 as well but I don’t think there is a mechanism to add jurisdictions to the list that requires pre-clearance. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. So you are willing to entirely ignore the century of slavery between 1776 and emanicipation? You should be on the pre-clearance list. 😃 I don’t see SCOTUS repealing section 5. No justice wants to be the one that writes the opinion for the next Dredd Scott case or Plessy v Ferguson. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/91 "2013-03-03T04:50:55Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > But having lived in both Boston and North Carolina I can state the former was a far, far more racist place. I’ve known a number of people, two of whom are African-American, who lived in both and while none would disagree that racism is a problem in Boston as it is everywhere in the US, none would claim that North Carolina was less racist than the state with Deval Patrick as Governor. Did you mean “the latter”? ---
**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 3, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/92 "2013-03-03T14:14:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah, but it helps. We should probably stick any jurisdiction that violates section 2 into section 5 as well but I don’t think there is a mechanism to add jurisdictions to the list that requires pre-clearance. Having just re-read the statute, I don’t think there is such a mechanism. Which is another problem, if Los Angeles County started up a vicious set of discriminatory voting laws tomorrow, they’d evade preclearance. Meanwhile, jurisdictions that have not done so for decades are still under preclearance orders. The law needs to be reformed. ---
**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 3, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/93 "2013-03-03T19:51:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you are willing to entirely ignore the century of slavery between 1776 and emanicipation? You should be on the pre-clearance list. I’m willing to cut Scalia a break. I won’t require him to be killed by a lynch mob in order to have the full black experience. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/94 "2013-03-03T21:22:48Z")
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but hasn’t the VRA already been declared constitutional **several times** by the SCOTUS over the past several decades? What the fuck has changed in the law in the last 40 years that would somehow now make it an unconstitutional overreach? Basically, invalidating the law would ONLY happen now because the clowns sitting on the Court _do not like it._ That’s well and good, but it isn’t their job to overturn legislation because they just aren’t happy with it; no, it’s their job to determine if the VRA is constitutional, and if they stick to precedent it should (presumably) be a done deal that it most assuredly is. And seriously, _how the FUCK_ is it the Court’s job to determine whether the VRA is even necessary anymore? That’s a job a for Congress, and they seemed pretty certain about it back in 2006. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/95 "2013-03-04T00:20:03Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I endorse your remarks, and will add that the VRA Section 5, with its focus on a few states and counties, perpetuates the idea that racism is a Southern problem, when in fact it’s a human problem. **The convenient whipping-boy of the South distracts from this, and slows progress in confronting and overcoming racism.** I’m sorry, but I’m not at all following the logic you must have employed to arrive at the bolded conclusion. Can you explain? ---
**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 4, 2013, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/96 "2013-03-04T13:44:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’m sorry, but I’m not at all following the logic you must have employed to arrive at the bolded conclusion. Can you explain? Racism becomes one of those ephemeral Other People’s Problems when it becomes correlated with a specific geographical region. We’d be better served by a national dialogue that racism is part of the human condition, reinforced by biological factors, and requires will to confront and overcome. Instead, racism is equated to evil, and to the South. This is fruitless. ---
**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 4, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/97 "2013-03-04T14:46:54Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > I’m not a constitutional scholar, but hasn’t the VRA already been declared constitutional **several times** by the SCOTUS over the past several decades? What the fuck has changed in the law in the last 40 years that would somehow now make it an unconstitutional overreach? > > \ > > And seriously, _how the FUCK_ is it the Court’s job to determine whether the VRA is even necessary anymore? That’s a job a for Congress, and they seemed pretty certain about it back in 2006. SCOTUS has determined that the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to infringe on state sovereignty to fix existing problems, but not to legislate to correct hypothetical ones. The latter form is called “prophylactic”. That means Congress has to have evidence before it when it legislates in this area. For example, Congress could pass the Fair Housing Act because discrimination against minorities in sale and rental of homes was a known problem. Congress had huge volumes of testimony and documentation establishing that black people couldn’t buy or rent in numerous areas of the country, and that state authorities were subtly or openly complicit. By the same token, Congress could pass the VRA in 1968 because it had a giant legislative record establishing that states and localities were limiting the voting rights of minorities. Thing is, the VRA as originally passed was a temporary measure; it was designed to sunset after 7 years. Each subsequent renewal is subject to the same limitations as the original legislation vis-a-vis the factual predicate, so for a challenge on those grounds it doesn’t matter if the legislation was previously upheld. The current suit asserts that in 2005, Congress no longer had a sufficient factual predicate regarding minority voting infringements to support reauthorization of the Act. With regard to the second part of your post quoted above, Congress probably was pretty certain about it in 2006, but that isn’t to say they were certain based on the evidence. In all probability, most congresscritters voted reflexively; after all, who would oppose voting rights? I’d have to go back and look at the legislative record to see how much actual floor debate and stuff there was, which I don’t have time for, though I imagine the SCOTUS briefs discuss it. ---
**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 4, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/98 "2013-03-04T15:29:35Z")
In regard to the above, and the question of existing vs. prophylactic problems, the latest U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [report](http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/051006VRAStatReport.pdf) on the enforcement of the VRA found, in the period 1995-2004, that less than 0.1 percent of all election changes requiring preclearance were objected to by the DoJ. For comparison, the figure from 1969 was almost 10 percent. I submit that this is strong evidence that the problem has passed from existing, to hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/99 "2013-03-04T18:45:56Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Racism becomes one of those ephemeral Other People’s Problems when it becomes correlated with a specific geographical region. Is this your opinion, or do you have some studies that indicate this to be true? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > We’d be better served by a national dialogue that racism is part of the human condition, **reinforced by biological factors** , and requires will to confront and overcome. What biological factors are you talking about here? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Instead, racism is equated to evil, and to the South. This is fruitless. Sorry, I’m not following you again. How do you get “racism = the South” from “racism is a problem, and has a pernicious history particularly in the South”? Because the VRA clearly espouses the latter view, yet you’re saying it somehow ultimately is perceived as the former. What evidence do you have that supports your view? ---
**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 4, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160/100 "2013-03-04T19:38:19Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Is this your opinion, or do you have some studies that indicate this to be true? Opinion, though it is supportable. [This](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-19/politics/36921180_1_racism-blacks-whites) Washington Post-ABC News poll concluded that the number of people who think racism is “a big problem” in the U.S. is dropping much faster than the number of people who claim to have experienced racial discrimination. It’s difficult to judge the impact of problems effecting others. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > What biological factors are you talking about here? The human brain. [Racism is Innate: The Human Brain Makes Unconscious Decisions Based On Ethnicity](http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/10458/20120626/racism-decision-cognition-emotional-ethnicity-human-brain-psychology.htm) > [@](#): > > The latest study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, found that functional magnetic resonance imaging brain scans revealed that interactions between people from different racial groups trigger reactions that researchers think may be completely unknown to our conscious selves. > > Researchers led by psychologist and neuroscientist Dr. Elizabeth Phelps of New York University reviewed past brain imaging studies showing how different social categories of race are processed, evaluated and integrated in decision-making. > > Past research found that the amygdala, an almond-shaped brain region located deep within the brain that processes fear and emotions, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex involved in top-down emotional control, and the anterior cingulate cortex that manages conflict between intentional and unintentional tendencies, and the fusiform face area that differentiates between familiar and unfamiliar faces, were simultaneously active during tasks that engaged racial bias like having participants view black and white faces while doing different tasks. Your brain treats people that look like you differently from people who don’t. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Sorry, I’m not following you again. How do you get “racism = the South” from “racism is a problem, and has a pernicious history particularly in the South”? Because the VRA clearly espouses the latter view, yet you’re saying it somehow ultimately is perceived as the former. What evidence do you have that supports your view? What evidence would you accept? How might one measure such a thing as to what degree the VRA leads people to associate the South with racism? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-voting-rights-act/651160.md?page=6)