In early 1965, President Lyndon Johnson addressed the nation on live television to announce his proposal for a voting rights bill. He ended his speech with, “We Shall Overcome.” This conclusion reassured civil rights leaders that he was fully on board and more federal protection against voting infringement was coming. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act by August of that year. Among other things, the new law required all or parts of 16 states to obtain preclearance, or prior approval, from the US Justice Department before establishing any new voting procedures. This step was to prevent creative new loopholes, notorious for deterring the black vote. Immediately, when race was no longer a factor, black voter registration and turnout began to increase.
Now, nearly 45 years later, is this law still necessary? That’s what a Texas utility district has asked the Supreme Court in an appeal the justices heard on April 29. This small jurisdiction near Austin simply wants to relocate its polling places from private homes and garages to public schools. To do so, it must first receive permission from Washington.
Instead of seeking preclearance, this “covered jurisdiction” sued the US attorney general, claiming that Congress overstepped its powers when it renewed the 1965 law in 2006.
In the Court, we see the typical 4:4:1 split along ideological lines. Justice David Souter, who has announced a retirement, cites a 16 point difference of white and Hispanic voters in the district, and claims things have not radically changed. But Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned if this federal interference will ever stop. The Court will decide the case in the coming weeks, and again it may come down to the swing vote, Anthony Kennedy.
With greater transparency, advanced media coverage, and a plethora of organized groups to monitor elections, this provision is not as necessary as it was in 1965. Yet, unless the preclearance procedure places an undue burden on a state or voting district, why would any state or county want to dodge the watchdog function of the federal government? What little inconvenience this law causes election officials, is a small price to pay to insure deterrents like the grandfather clause and the literacy test are not resurrected.