The Supremes-Another of Their Biggest Hits

The Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act today was not unexpected, but it is still disappointing.

The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 2006 by votes of 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. It has a fifty-year record of effectiveness. As recently as the last election this law allowed the Justice department to challenge and block attempts by three states to implement discriminatory laws. But Roberts writes as if the changes made in the past fifty years have completely remade the country, as if racism and attempts to restrict voting rights were a thing of the past. During oral arguments, Scalia dismissed the VRA as a "racial entitlement."

To be accurate, the Court did not strike down the VRA. It merely gutted, by a 5-4 vote, its most important provision which required certain state and local governments to get federal "preclearance" before making any changes in their voting procedures. The Court did not rule on the requirement for preclearance, but struck down the formula by which it was determined when preclearance was required. This requirement, overwhelmingly re-approved by Congress, even by the Senators and Representatives in affected areas, was to Roberts' thinking "an undue burden on the states."

Congress could still write a different formula to determine when preclearance is needed, and I'm sure efforts will be made. But good luck trying and get anything through this particular House of Representatives.