George F. Will: Time caught up with the Voting Rights Act

Published: June 27, 2013
Advertisement
;

“But history did not end in 1965.”

— Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday

Progressives resent progress when it renders anachronistic once-valid reasons for enlarging the federal government's supervisory and coercive powers. Hence they regret Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling that progress has rendered Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

This section stipulates the formula by which nine states and some jurisdictions in others are brought under Section 5, which requires them to get federal permission — “preclearance” — for even the most minor changes in voting procedures. The 15th Amendment empowers Congress to enforce with “appropriate legislation” the right to vote. Sections 4 and 5 were appropriate 48 years ago, when the preclearance provisions were enacted for five years. They have been extended four times, most recently in 2006 for 25 years.

The VRA is the noblest legislation in American history, more transformative than the 1862 Homestead Act, the 1862 Morrill Act (land-grant colleges) or the 1944 GI Bill of Rights. But extraordinary laws that once were constitutional, in spite of being discordant with the nation's constitutional architecture, can become unconstitutional when facts that made the law appropriate change. The most recent data, such as registration and voting rates, on which Section 4 is based, are from 1972. The data would have been 59 years old when the most recent extension would have expired in 2031. Tuesday's decision prevents this absurdity that Congress embraced.

In 2009, in a case in which the court chose not to rule on the continuing constitutionality of the VRA's formula, the court — Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority — clearly challenged Congress to update the VRA because it “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” On Tuesday, Roberts tersely said Section 4 is “based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.”

The 2006 extension was passed by votes of 390-33 and 98-0 in the House and Senate, respectively. Justice Antonin Scalia suggested during February's oral argument that these numbers indicated not conviction based on reflection about continuing necessities but rather the reluctance of risk-averse legislators to vote against something with the “wonderful” name Voting Rights Act. Scalia should have cited the actual name of the 2006 extension: the “Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.” It is anti-constitutional to argue that it would have been admirable “restraint” for the court to respect Congress' decision to extend all of the VRA — whether from conviction, cowardice or sloth — regardless of what the court has called the act's “substantial federalism costs.”



Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    Baylor's Shawn Oakman not impressed by OU's win over Alabama in Sugar Bowl
  2. 2
    Dez Bryant, three Sooners in NFL trade value top 50 (so far)
  3. 3
    Johnny Manziel's No. 2 leads NFL in jersey sales
  4. 4
    You're more likely to get a raise now
  5. 5
    Google has a plan to speed up the Web
+ show more