The Supreme Court's recent decisions regarding the Voting Rights Act have sparked a heated debate, leaving many to question the future of voting rights in the United States. These rulings, though seemingly timid, have far-reaching implications and reveal a troubling trend in the Court's approach to civil rights legislation. In this article, I will delve into the core ideas and provide a comprehensive analysis, offering my personal interpretation and commentary on this critical issue.
The Voting Rights Act: A Brief History
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 stands as a monumental achievement in American history, marking a significant step towards racial equality. It was designed to prevent states from denying anyone the right to vote based on their race, and its impact was immediate and profound. Within just two years of its enactment, Black voter registration rates in Mississippi soared from 6.7% to 60%, a testament to the law's effectiveness. However, the Supreme Court's Republican majority has consistently shown a deep-seated hostility towards this legislation, with Justice Elena Kagan describing it as the Court's 'worst treated statute'.
The Supreme Court's Recent Decisions
On Monday, the Court issued two orders in cases related to the Voting Rights Act, both of which were surprisingly non-committal. In Turtle Mountain Band v. Howe, the lower court supported Justice Neil Gorsuch's theory, which aims to further neutralize the VRA. Meanwhile, in Board of Election Commissioners v. NAACP, the lower court rejected Gorsuch's attack on the law. These decisions have left many wondering why the Court chose to punt this fight until a future date, and whether the Voting Rights Act is still relevant.
The Voting Rights Act's Remaining Impact
Before the Republican justices began their dismantling of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the law employed several mechanisms to ensure voting rights for people of color. The original 1965 law required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' any new election laws with officials in Washington, DC, to prevent voter suppression. The 1982 amendment targeted state election laws that had negative racial impacts, even if the plaintiffs couldn't prove racist intent. However, these provisions were effectively repealed by the Court's recent decisions in Callais and similar cases.
Gorsuch's Proposal and its Implications
Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in Brnovich v. DNC suggests that the Voting Rights Act does not include an 'implied cause of action', which would make it impossible for private plaintiffs to sue for violations of the VRA. This proposal, if taken to the extreme, could leave voting rights plaintiffs worse off than they were before the VRA's enactment. The language of the VRA, which focuses on the rights of 'any citizen of the United States', should permit private lawsuits under the Talevski framework. However, Gorsuch's opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, indicates that there are at least two votes on the Court to cut off private lawsuits under the VRA altogether.
The 15th Amendment and its Relevance
The 15th Amendment, which bars state action motivated by racial discrimination, is already a voting rights provision. The question arises: if Thomas and Gorsuch are willing to shut down VRA suits, why wouldn't they also shut down 15th Amendment suits? The Court's recent decisions have delayed resolving this question, leaving the future of voting rights in a state of uncertainty. These rulings raise a deeper question: are the Court's actions a subtle form of voter suppression, and what does this mean for the democratic process?
Conclusion: A Call for Action
The Supreme Court's decisions regarding the Voting Rights Act are a cause for concern. While some shell of the VRA remains on the books, it no longer appears to do any independent work. The Court's hostility towards voting rights legislation is a threat to the democratic process and must be addressed. As citizens, we must demand that our elected officials take action to protect voting rights and ensure that the Court's decisions do not lead to further disenfranchisement. The future of democracy in the United States depends on our collective efforts to safeguard the right to vote for all citizens.
