(SitNews) - The United States Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 ruling on Tuesday issued a decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, holding that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section 4 contains a formula identifying jurisdictions that had to submit any changes in their election laws to the federal government for pre-approval or “preclearance.” This decision frees Alaska from the onerous requirement that it ask permission from the federal government before making any change to its election laws or procedures, no matter how small.

“The State welcomes [Tuesday’s] ruling, because it removes the taint of federal supervision of Alaska elections and gives the Division of Elections flexibility to respond to local needs and conditions without federal interference,” Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty said. “The State’s commitment to Alaska remains steadfast to ensure all Alaska voters are able to exercise their right to vote, free from race or language discrimination. We will continue to protect voting rights and to provide minority language Alaska voters with the assistance they require to express their political will at the ballot box.”

The court found that Section 4’s formula no longer accurately identifies jurisdictions in need of this federal supervision. The court therefore held unconstitutional the requirement that only covered jurisdictions - including Alaska - submit proposed changes to the federal government for preclearance. The prohibitions against discrimination in voting remain in place, and Alaska continues to be committed to ensuring that all its residents have equal access to the polls.

In Tuesday’s decision, the court emphasized that the preclearance requirement was a “drastic departure from the basic principles of federalism” that must be justified by “current needs.” The court ruling added, “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

The court invited Congress to revise the Voting Rights Act to create a new coverage formula that would identify jurisdictions with current problems of voting discrimination.

Shelby Co., Alabama challenged the act in 2010 arguing that Congress's failure to modernize the law in light of the enormous improvements in minority electoral opportunities in the states covered by the law rendered it unconstitutional.

Frank C, Ellis, Jr., the county attorney for Shelby County, Alabama, said, "We are grateful the Supreme Court recognized that our vibrant and diverse county no longer requires federal supervision of our elections."

Ellis added, "The justices correctly acknowledged that the covered jurisdictions should no longer be punished by the federal government for conditions that existed over 40 years ago. The South is an altogether different place than it was in 1965."

The Project on Fair Representation (POFR), a not-for-profit legal defense foundation based in Alexandria, Virginia, provided counsel to Shelby Co.

Edward Blum, director of POFR, said, "This decision restores an important constitutional order to our system of government which requires that all 50 states are entitled to equal dignity and sovereignty. Our nation's laws must apply uniformly to each state and jurisdiction."

Blum added, "The Supreme Court [Tuesday] confirmed that there are no meaningful differences in minority voting opportunities between the covered and non-covered jurisdictions. African Americans and Hispanics routinely win elections in white-majority districts in states such as Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina, to name a few."

"The American South long ago laid down the burdens of minority disfranchisement and has integrated African Americans fully into its political life," Blum said.

Blum concluded, "The Supreme Court's opinion is a great testament to the character of the American people who have labored to fulfill the guarantee of racial equality in voting."

In a prepared statement, Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which defended the Voting Rights Act before the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The Supreme Court ruling takes the most powerful tool our nation has to defend minority voting rights out of commission. By second-guessing Congress' judgment about which places should be covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court has left millions of minority voters without the mechanism that has allowed them to stop voting discrimination before it occurs. This is like letting you keep your car, but taking away the keys. To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. Congress must step in."

The Supreme Court declined the request by Shelby County, Alabama to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires some states and localities to illustrate that proposed changes to the voting process don't suppress minority voters before those changes can take effect. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 itself, which has been upheld in four previous challenges.

Ifill said, "[Tuesday's] ruling conflicts with a deeply held value in America that every individual has the sacred right to vote. Our country is stronger when more—not fewer—people participate in the political process."

"Today will be remembered as a step backwards in the march towards equal rights. We must ensure that this day is just a page in our nation's history, rather than the return to a dark chapter," said Ifill.

Alaska Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell in a prepared statement said, “Alaska's victory over preclearance in the Supreme Court [Tuesday] brings decision-making home on elections to Alaskans. We have, for many decades now, been required to ask the U.S. Justice Department's permission for the most minor and routine changes to election forms.  We have been subject to constant inspection, and the Justice Department has never shared its findings with us. It was federal overreach far beyond what is needed to protect all of our civil rights and was an unnecessary hindrance to serving Alaskan voters across our state." 

Treadwell said, "The real job is to make sure every Alaskan who is eligible to vote can vote. Here in Alaska, we are committed to continually improving access to registration and access to the ballot."  

"This July, in my role overseeing elections, I will host Secretaries of State of all political parties from across the country in Alaska. We will discuss this ruling and again trade information on how to improve and modernize elections," said the Lt. Governor. 

Tredwell said, "I congratulate Attorney General Michael Geraghty for taking action to join this lawsuit and to bring decision making back to Alaska. That is what the founders of our country intended. Alaskans can be proud of this victory.”

“This comes down to protecting basic rights for all Alaskans,” said Mike Wenstrup, Chair of the Alaska Democratic Party."  As the overseer of the Division of Elections, it is unacceptable that Mead Treadwell would back the gutting of Alaska voter rights."

Congress wrote Section 5 to protect the voting rights of Alaska Natives, African Americans, and other groups that suffer voter discrimination.  Alaska was included in Section 5 because of "educational discrimination" against Native Alaskans that resulted in higher rates of illiteracy, lower English proficiency, and diminished ability to read and understand questions on a ballot.  Congress affirmatively included Alaska and Alaska Natives in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 1974 and in 2006, when the law was reauthorized. 

Alaska's Congressional delegation supported inclusion of Alaska under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for the duration of the Voting Rights Act’s existence, including in 2006, due to persistent discrimination against Alaska Natives.  The Parnell-Treadwell amicus brief and lawsuit against the Voting Rights Act, which now have prevailed, reverse 40 years of bipartisan support for the Voting Rights Act among Alaska’s Congressional delegation.  The Alaska Federation of Natives submitted a detailed amicus brief to the Supreme Court documenting persistent discrimination against Alaska Natives, including educational discrimination. 

The five-person Supreme Court majority wrote that current discrimination does not justify preclearance requirements, ignoring 15,000 pages of evidence about the persistence of discrimination that Congress considered when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006. The Senate voted unanimously and the House voted 390-33 for the 2006 Voting Rights Act, including Alaska’s entire Congressional delegation.  The Native American Rights Fund and other groups have provided voluminous documentation about discrimination against Alaska Natives, and Alaska’s Congressional delegation supported continued inclusion of Alaska when Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006.

The Supreme Court chose to invalidate Section 4 formula requirements, eliminating the preclearance process, which for practical purposes nullifies Section 5. 

According to the Detroit Branch of the NAACP, this 5 to 4 ruling places the future of the Voting Rights Act and its enforcement in the hands of a congress that is dysfunctional, intransigent, and often engaged in political stagnation it is indeed a betrayal of the fundamental voting rights of every American. African Americans, Latinos and other minorities are still the victims of severe misuse of voting ID laws. Early voting restrictions, even in the 2012 elections, demonstrate very clearly the need for monitoring and enforcement of state and local communities who violate the rights of the people.

U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) said, “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was landmark civil rights legislation designed to protect the right to vote for all Americans.  In Alaska, many Alaska Natives and rural Alaskans have faced challenges when it comes to voting, and still do today.  As recently as two years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice had to intervene in Alaska election procedures to protect this most basic right.  That’s why I am disappointed with today’s Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of this important law.”

Begich said, “The formulas contained in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act were developed in the 1960s and 1970s.  Times have changed since and Alaska has made some progress, but challenges remain. For example, the Alaska Legislature right now is considering measures to make it more difficult for rural Alaskans to exercise their right to vote through voter ID bills while the State is closing rural polling places.”

“It is time for Congress to revise these decades-old formulas and develop better methods to identify and eliminate sources of discrimination in voting right and today’s ruling provides us that opportunity. I will fight for Alaska’s unique needs and work to ensure that all Alaskans – no matter where they live - have clear and unrestrained access to the polls," said Begich.

“Voting is a bedrock principle of our democracy. We need leadership at the Division of Elections to support voting rights for all Alaskans whether they live in Barrow, St Lawrence Island, Shemya or anywhere in between,” said Bob Williams, the Democratic candidate for Alaska Lieutenant Governor.

Williams said, "Alaska’s Congressional delegation has strongly supported the Voting Rights Act and supported Alaska’s inclusion under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 1974 and during the reauthorization in 2006. The Parnell-Treadwell Administration’s support for reducing Alaskan Native voter protections does not align with our Alaska values of fairness."

"The Parnell-Treadwell Administration in 2012 closed the in-person voting in Klawock and removed early in-person voting in several villages including Hyder, Igiugig, and Livengood.  The Parnell-Treadwell Administration also filed an amicus brief in support of Shelby County and, separately, sued to invalidate Section 5 which protected the voting rights of Alaska Natives.  The Lynn/Keller Photo ID bill (House Bill 3) is another proposal that would make it harder for rural Alaskans to vote," said Williams.

Source of News: 

Alaska Department of Law
www.law.state.ak.us

Alaska Democratic Party
www.alaskademocrats.org/‎

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
www.naacpldf.org

The Project on Fair Representation
www.projectonfairrepresentation.org

Office of U.S. Sen. Mark Begich
www.begich.senate.gov

Detroit Branch NAACP
http://www.detroitnaacp.org

Bob Williams -
Democratic Candidate for Alaska Lt. Governor

SitNews ©2013
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska

Articles & photographs that appear in SitNews may be protected by copyright and may not be reprinted without written permission from and payment of any required fees to the proper sources.