Daily Report Online
  • News
  • Special Reports
  • Court Opinions
  • Court Calendars
  • Bench Guide
  • Public Notices
  • Contact
  • Books
  • Events
  • Classifieds

Home > No high court action on voting rights law

Font Size: increase font decrease font

News

No high court action on voting rights law

By Jay Reeves and Mark Sherman All Articles 

The Associated Press

October 29, 2012

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Three years ago, the Supreme Court warned there could be constitutional problems with a landmark civil rights law that has opened voting booths to millions of African-Americans. Now, opponents of a key part of the Voting Rights Act are asking the high court to finish off that provision.

The basic question is whether state and local governments that once boasted of their racial discrimination still can be forced in the 21st century to get federal permission before making changes in the way they hold elections.

Some of the governments covered — most of them are in the South — argue they have turned away from racial discrimination over the years. But Congress and lower courts that have looked at recent challenges to the law concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight.

The Supreme Court took no action Monday on cases asking it to end the Voting Rights Act's advance approval requirement that has been held up as a crown jewel of the civil rights era.

The justices sidestepped this very issue in a case from Texas in 2009. In an opinion joined by eight justices, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote then that the issue of advance approval "is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today."

Since then, Congress has not addressed potential problems identified by the court. Meanwhile, the law's opponents sensed its vulnerability and filed several new lawsuits.

The advance approval, or preclearance requirement, was adopted in the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to give federal officials a potent tool to defeat persistent efforts to keep blacks from voting.

The provision was a huge success, and Congress periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent occasion was in 2006, when a Republican-led Congress overwhelmingly approved and President George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension.

The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan and New Hampshire. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaskan Natives and Hispanics.

Before these locations can change their voting rules, they must get approval either from the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division or from the federal district court in Washington that the new rules won't discriminate.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Next

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • North Carolina
  • New York
  • Washington
  • Reeves
  • South Carolina
  • District 2
  • Calera City Council
  • New Hampshire Inc.
  • Supreme Court
  • U.S. Justice Department

Most viewed stories

    
  1. DeKalb Judge Dismisses, Then Recuses
    •      
  2. Lawyer Discipline: Cases Include Suspension, License Surrender
    •      
  3. Real Estate Lawyers Target Closing Vendors
    •      
  4. Lenders Win On Foreclosures
    •         
      • Subscription Required
  5. Brooks Looks To Political Ally For Criminal Defense
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

EEOC Gets Tough With Companies on Genetic Privacy

Retailers Facing Employment Law Vulnerabilities

Amid Spy Scandal, Russia Boots Baker & McKenzie Lawyer

Survey: Firm Leaders Admit Downturn's Permanent Impact

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Cisco E-Book Delivers Ethics on the Go

Collaboration Is Key to Defending Cyberattacks

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook

Fla. Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Lawsuit Names Missing Fla. Attorney for Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Loaner Judges Helping Essex Cope With Persistent Vacancies
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Surrogate Faces Suspension for Political Activity, Drunken Driving
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Court System, Counties Agree on 3 Court Facility Upgrades

Guardian Who Delayed Final Account Must Pay Referee Fee
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Perelman's Case Against Arlin Adams Thrown Out

McVay Wins Superior Court Nod With Western Turnout
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Advising Clients on Weather and the Workplace
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Texas Sues BP, Transocean, Halliburton, Anadarko Entities
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Insurer Beats Bid By Bilked Client
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Barnes Asks For Court-Appointed Lawyer To Help Defend Brooks

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • Contact Daily Report   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media