I'm seeing a bit of liberal alarmism around the web on the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act decision which I think is really misplaced. Over at ThinkProgress, Ian Millheiser writes that "the Court instead handed down an 8-1 decision today that chips away at the landmark law." At The Nation, John Nichols writes that the decision "pulls teeth from the Voting Rights Act." This is untrue.
The decision is really quite narrow: it expands the pool of jurisdictions under preclearance that are allowed to apply for bailout. All that means is that smaller political subdivisions will have an easier time getting out from under Section 5--a fair decision if you buy the court's rationale that since only 17 jurisdictions have bailed out, that proves the law isn't working as it's supposed to.
What the law does not do is alter the conditions jurisdictions have to meet for bailout, such as the 10 years of "good behavior". Kristen Clarke of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund says that "the Court's decision leaves in place the heart of the Voting Rights Act-- Section 5 -- which has long protected and shielded the rights of minority voters from discrimination." Gerry Hebert, a former chief of the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department, described the ruling as "narrow" and said "The Voting Rights Act dodged a bullet."
This was a fair ruling--in fact it's beyond what many folks who support Section 5 were hoping for. "There was some real concern after the oral argument questioning that they were giving Congress very little deference despite the fact there was such overwhelming support for the Voting Rights Act extension in Congress," Hebert says. "So it's good that the court leaves the Voting Rights Act intact for another day."
In other words: the upholding of Section 5 is unequivocally good news--I think we're so used to being mad at the decisions handed down by the Roberts court that we're ignoring that this was a good decision--one might even say a conservative decision--one that respects precedent and Congress' legislative authority.
-- A. Serwer
