The Constitutionality of a Certain 48-year-old Voting Act: A Blog Post.

                Today’s post deals with the Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder, which was argued and decided in 2013. This case deals with the Constitutionality of sections 4b and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

                The above-mentioned Act “was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting.” Section 4b deals with particular districts that employed either tests or other prerequisites for voting as well as “low voter registration or turnout;” these districts were known as covered jurisdictions (1). Section 5 stated that these voting requirements could not be changed “until approved by specific federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” (2). This regulation was expected to last only five years but kept getting reauthorized. Finally, it was authorized for an additional 25 years in 2006.  

                The Tenth Amendment states that the powers not given to the Federal government or forbidden to be given to the states belong to the states or to the people. The Supreme Court admits that the liberties taken by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are in disagreement with the Tenth Amendment. However, an earlier Case said regarding the Act that “such an ‘uncommon exercise of congressional power’ could be justified by ‘exceptional conditions’” (3). The Court in Shelby County v. Holder decided that the conditions which necessitated these clauses of the Act have long since lost their place in America, and thus these clauses were no longer needed. Additionally, because the clauses concerned only nine states and some counties, they were against “the tradition of equal sovereignty” (4). Thus, Section 4 was deemed unconstitutional.

                I feel like it is good to know that the Supreme Court keeps tabs on laws and regulations that have outlived their usefulness. However, it feels strange to me that a law that at one time is necessary and right is deemed unconstitutional years later. It feels like if a law needs to be repealed, that is fine, but it should not be in danger of being unconstitutional in any case. I suppose, though, that this can fall under “necessary and proper” in order to carry out other parts of the Constitution (5), such as the 15^th Amendment, which states no one may be denied the right to vote based on race (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 15). This can also be compared to the suspension of Habeas corpus during the Civil War. After the Civil War, the right to Habeas corpus was reestablished. Thus it is with other laws, such as the Voting Rights Act, that violate the Constitution at face value. They are alright when deemed necessary, but when they are no longer applicable, steps should be taken to ensure their removal. 

Bibliography:

1. "Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General: Syllabus," Syllabus written by the Reporter of Decisions, hosted by Cornell University Law School. Website not dated, accessed March 20, 2014, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.