Supreme Court: Voting Rights Act on thin ice

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning upheld the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but it indicated that the measure may be on thin ice.

Read the decision here.

Specifically at issue was the provision which requires Justice Department approval of changes to any voting law by Georgia and several other states with a history of discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas, the only African-American on the bench, was the only dissenting voice.

Thomas argued “the lack of current evidence of intentional discrimination with respect to voting renders [Section 5] unconstitutional.”

Wrote Roberts:

[The] constitutional question has attracted ardent briefs from dozens of interested parties, but the importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it.

Quite the contrary: Our usual practice is to avoid the unnecessary resolution of constitutional questions. We agree that the district is eligible under the Act to seek bailout. We therefore reverse, and do not reach the constitutionality of [Section 5].

But the justices indicated that the federal government was going overboard in its refusal to allow many jurisdictions to escape the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Since 1982, only 17 jurisdictions—out of the more than 12,000 covered political subdivisions—have successfully bailed out of the Act. It is unlikely that Congress intended the provision to have such limited effect . We therefore hold that all political subdivisions…are eligible to file a bailout suit.

You have to wonder when Georgia will file its suit.

Here’s the gist of Thomas’ dissent:

The Court quite properly alerts Congress that [Section 5] tests the outer boundaries of its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority and may not be constitutional.

And, although I respect the Court’s careful approach to this weighty issue, I nevertheless believe it is necessary to definitively resolve that important question. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the lack of current evidence of intentional discrimination with respect to voting renders [Section 5] unconstitutional. The provision can no longer be justified as an appropriate mechanism for enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment.

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.