Civil and Human Rights

CAC Reacts To Supreme Court Opinion Striking Down Part Of Iconic Voting Rights Act

SUPREME COURT PLAZA, Washington, DC – On news that the Supreme Court this morning struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Constitutional Accountability Center Civil Rights Director David Gans released the following reaction after exiting the Court:

 

“Today is a sad day for all Americans who care about protection of one our most fundamental rights, the right to vote. In striking down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Court flouts the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment, which expressly give to Congress broad powers to prevent and deter all forms of racial discrimination in voting.

 

“As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in a powerful dissent, Congress properly used these broad constitutional powers to prevent current and ongoing racial discrimination in voting concentrated in the covered jurisdictions.

 

“Justice Ginsburg further explained that Congress was not required to update the coverage forumla, bacuse the Voting Rights Act’s 15,000-page record in 2006 shows that pre-clearance continues to cover the jusrisdictions with the worst record of voting discrimination.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

CAC “friend of the court” brief in Shelby County v. Holder, arguing that the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment require the Voting Rights Act be upheld:

http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Constitutional-Accountability-Center-Shelby-Supreme-Court-Amicus.pdf

 

“How to judge the Supreme Court’s upcoming equality rulings,” Doug Kendall and David Gans, May 31, 2013: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-supreme-court-upcoming-equality-rulings-133411843.html

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2024

QUICK TAKE: Corporate Interests at the Supreme Court, 2023-2024 Term

Conservative supermajority discards precedent, shifts power to judges, and hobbles agency efforts to enforce the...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
 

Garland v. VanDerStok

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Supreme Court is considering whether weapon parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers should be regulated as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act.
Rule of Law
July 1, 2024

RELEASE: High Court’s Decision on Presidential Immunity Is Too Little and Too Late to Ensure the Framers’ Vision of Presidential Accountability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States,...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Smita Ghosh
Rule of Law
July 30, 2024

She cemented a conservative Supreme Court, but a ‘cautious’ Justice Barrett sometimes resists the far-right flank

NBC News
In several recent cases, the Trump appointee has written opinions criticizing conservative colleagues and has...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Lawrence Hurley
Civil and Human Rights
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: In Flagrant Judicial Power Grab, Court Discards Chevron Doctrine, Undermining Congress and Agencies, and Threatening Government Programs that Protect Americans

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen