Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Kaliyur 1

Sanjay Kaliyur
Mr. Nguyen
AP Lang / Period 2
April 12, 2014
America Has Changed
Race Fight For Right To Work (Taylor). No, this is not the headline for a recent
news article. This is in fact from a newspaper article from May 31, 1940. Headlines like
these have seldom been a part of the news in the past few decades because of recent
race equality in the United States. However, it is tough to forget that segregation and
racism have taken up a large portion of our history. African Americans have been
treated poorly and unequally by America for the better part of our countrys history. For
the past century, however, those of African American descent have started to achieve
great strides in terms of equality. Segregation and discrimination are a thing of the past.
One main area of inequality for African Americans in the past has been the ability
to vote in elections. Due to great segregation and abusive tactics to prevent African
Americans from voting, the government created the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, an
act that prevents voter discrimination in elections. The VRA leveled the playing field in
terms of elections and saw that the voices of all minorities were heard. In June of 2013,
the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the VRA, which identified the areas in
which racial discrimination in voting had been more prevalent (Section 4) and stated
that the formula it used to determine those states with discrimination is unconstitutional.
By striking down Section 4, Section 5 of the VRA has been rendered useless because it
requires that those states under Section 4s coverage formula seek preclearance from

Kaliyur 2
the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington, D.C., before making changes
to voting laws (Malcolm). There has been outrage by many supporters of Section 4,
including President Obama who stated that invalidating one of [the Voting Rights Acts]
core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting
is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent
(Reilly). The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court favored the removal of Section 4 and
as Chief Justice John Roberts said, things have changed dramatically (Clegg). The
Supreme Courts decision to deem Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional is
a wise one because this section and Section 5 diminish the principle of equal state
sovereignty and the formula used to determine the jurisdictions under Section 4 is
extremely outdated and abusively burdens the nine states under the section for
discrimination that ended many decade ago.
This nation is the land of the free; a place where everyone is equal and has
equal power and rights. These are the principles of federalism, "one of the most
important and innovative concepts in the U.S. Constitution...[It] is the sharing of power
between national and state governments" (Monk). In our federalist country, the national
and state governments are supposed to work together, with neither branch having more
authority on another. Section 5, however, places the national government on a higher
pedestal than the state governments. This section forces the nine states under Section
4s coverage formula to seek permission from the Justice Department to change their
own voting laws while allowing the majority of states to change their own voting laws
without federal permission. This is "an extraordinary intrusion into state sovereignty and
principles of federalism" (Malcolm). In a nation trying to eliminate discrimination

Kaliyur 3
amongst races, why are we discriminating against states? Similar to how African
Americans were discriminated due to their ancestors pasts as slaves, these nine states
are being discriminated against because of the discrimination that occurred in the past.
A large benefit seen through the court's decision to find Section 4
unconstitutional is the nullification of Section 5 of the VRA. Section 5 requires that
states covered under Section 4's formula request permission from the federal
government before they make any changes to their voting method. This is unfair, and as
explained in the previous paragraph, forces certain states to abide by rules that other
states do not have to follow. Furthermore, Section 5 is no longer applicable in our
country. The Supreme Court only upheld it based on the dire and exceptional
conditions then present in the covered jurisdictions where official, systematic, and
widespread discrimination in voting existed at that time, but which, fortunately, does not
exist today (Malcolm). This discrimination not only prevented African Americans from
voting but also from holding office, a problems that no longer exist. In fact, by the 2008
election, a stunning 69.7 percent of the black population was registered to vote and
turn- out rates were similarly impressive. By 2008, there were 41 members of the
Congressional Black Caucus; almost 600 African-Americans held seats in state
legislatures, and another 8,800 were mayors, sheriffs, school board members, and the
like (Shapiro). This picture is very clear. The reality is that Section 5 protects minorities
from a problem that no longer exists. Not only is it unnecessary but also outdated.
A perfect example of the unfair and cruel punishment forcing a state to get
permission from the federal government due to changes in voting methods is seen most
clearly by the state of Alabama. Alabama is one of the nine states under Section 4's

Kaliyur 4
formula and by Section 5, must get permission from the Justice Department in order to
make any voting changes. This process can be a waste of time but Section 5 requires it
even when the change is obviously lawful. For example, when parts of Alabama were
evacuated recently because of a hurricane, local officials had to divert attention away
from making people safe so they could get federal permission to postpone elections
scheduled for that day (Strange). Forcing Alabama to get permission for postponing
elections while risking the lives of human beings in extremely unethical. Section 5 in this
situation directly interferes with John Stuart Mills Greatest Happiness Principle, which
states the ultimate endis an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as
rich as possible in enjoyments (Mill). By being obligated to abide by Section 5 and
thus endangering the lives of Alabama residents, the state is forced to bring its citizens
closer to pain and farther away from enjoyment.
Section 4 of the VRA has been dictating which states get the unfair expectations
in terms of voting laws for far too long. This abusive system might have been justified
when the south was still extremely discriminatory towards minorities, but the struggles
of Jim Crow south are nowhere to be seen today. In their decision the Supreme Court
came to the conclusion that the formula is based on decades-old data and eradicated
practices. Such a formula cannot justify treating some jurisdictions differently from
others (Clegg). The court furthered their view by clarifying that history did not end in
1965, and more recent evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that things have
changed dramatically (Clegg). The level of racism is nowhere near as close to the level
it was fifty years ago, yet Section 4 is still hampering and abusing these nine states.
How is it possible that Section 4 is still is use today? The reality is that the formula for

Kaliyur 5
determining the states with the most voter discrimination today "is based on voter
turnout data from the presidential elections in 1964, 1968, and 1972. Congress
reauthorized Section 5 and the coverage formula in 2006 for another 25 years without
updating the formula (Malcolm). Congress clearly failed to adequately assess the
current need for this provision. In Alabama for example, Minority voter registration is
betterthan in states that don't have to comply with Section 5. The federal government
hasn't rejected a statewide law in Alabama under Section 5 in 16 years (Strange). If the
Justice Department has not found any reason to reject a voter law in Alabama in more
than a decade, why is Alabama still under Section 4s grasp? As the court stated,
current burdens must be justified by current needs (Malcolm) and looking at todays
country, there is no need for such an abusive burden.
Some may see problems with removing Sections 4 and 5. After all, what is to
protect the voting rights of citizens now that states are now free to implement any unfair
voting tactics they want? It is important to remember that the Supreme Court did not
vote on the constitutionality of the entire Voting Rights Act and "The decision did not
invalidate the entire Voting Rights Act, and it will not promote discrimination" (Malcolm).
In reality, there are other provisions in the Voting Rights Act that also protect the rights
of the people, mainly Section 2. Section 2 is another important provision that enforces
a permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting and can still be used to
challenge discriminatory practices if they occur, (Malcolm). Furthermore, Section 2
suits can often be cheaper and be dealt with faster than those dealing with Sections 4
and 5. The DOJ can essentially assume plaintiffs costs for Section 2 suitsAs for the
issue of expediency, when discriminatory practices are imminent and threaten injury

Kaliyur 6
before parties have had the opportunity to litigate, the courts may issue a preliminary
injunction to prevent irreparable harm caused by adjudicative delay (Shapiro). Section
2 is a more than adequate solution for cases regarding voter discrimination thus further
proving the unnecessary existence of Sections 4 and 5.
The problems that once justified such an extreme act in our country no longer
exist; this is a new America that no longer needs to be burdened by abusive and
outdated laws. Invalidating Section 4 is not a tragedy. It is, in fact "a huge victory for
federalism and a sign of the tremendous racial progress that this country has made
since the time the Voting Rights Act was passed" (Malcolm). Sections 4 and 5 were
reverting our nation to the segregated and discriminatory country it once was. Rather
than discriminating against people, it discriminated against states. The most important
aspect of this is that other provisions in the VRA such as Section 2 are still protecting
our voting rights. Removing Sections 4 and 5 only benefits our nation and creates
equality amongst the states. The principle of virtue ethics states that there are certain
ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should
strive and which allow the full development of our humanity (Velasquez). This historic
decision enhances the common good. It is good the Supreme Court made the decision
they did because now we can begin to advance and develop as a society.

Kaliyur 7
Works Cited
Clegg, Roger. "This Isn't 1965: Opposing View." USA Today. Gannett, 25 June 2013. Web.
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-center-for-equalopportunity-editorials-debates/2457037/>.
Malcolm, John G., and Elizabeth Slattery. "Supreme Court to Congress on Voting Rights Act:
"History Did Not End in 1965"" The Foundry. The Heritage Foundation, 25 June 2013.
Web. <http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/25/supreme-court-to-congress-on-voting-rightsact-history-did-not-end-in-1965/>.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. N.p.: n.p., 1861. Print.
Monk, Linda R. "Federalism." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. <http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usapeter-sagal/federalism/>.
Reilly, Ryan J. "Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down By Supreme Court." The Huffington
Post. HuffingtonPost.com, 25 June 2013. Web.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supremecourt_n_3429810.html>.
"Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act." Civil Rights Division Page. United States Department of
Justice, N.d. Web. <http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php>.
Shapiro, Ilya, and Matthew B. Gilliam. "Shelby County v. Holder." Cato Institute. N.p., 2 Jan.
2013. Web. <http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/shelby-county-v-holder>.
Strange, Luther. "Section 5 Is Unconstitutional: Opposing View." USA Today. Gannett, 26 Feb.
2013. Web. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/26/section-5-voting-rightsact-shelby-county/1950001/>.

Kaliyur 8
Taylor, Grace. "The Northwest Enterprise in the Cold War Years (1947-1949)." Seattle Civil
Rights and Labor History Project. University of Washington, n.d. Web.
<https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/news_NWEnterprise47.htm>.
Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S. J., and Michael J. Meyer. Issues In
Ethics. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. N.p.: n.p., 1988. Ethics and Virtue. Santa Clara University. Web.
<http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicsandvirtue.html>.

Вам также может понравиться