National Today is April 25th, 2017|Hudson Valley Press - More Than News |Bookmark HVPress!

June 26th, 2013

Schneiderman leads multi-state coalition for the Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the coverage provision, while preserving Section 5, the preclearance provision. The Supreme Court’s decision puts the responsibility on Congress to rewrite the coverage provision. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman led a four-state coalition to argue that the Court should uphold the entire law given the important role that the Voting Rights Act plays in blocking and deterring voting discrimination.

"The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 4 is deeply disappointing, and Congress must act immediately to develop a new coverage provision that will ensure equal access to the political process for every American," Attorney General Schneiderman said. "While the Supreme Court has preserved the preclearance process of Section 5, it is now the responsibility of Congress to ensure that the Voting Rights Act continues to play its vital role in strengthening our democracy and combating and deterring voting discrimination."

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg aptly observed in dissent: "Beyond question, the VRA is no ordinary legislation. It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment. For a half century, a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made."

The case concerned a constitutional challenge brought by Shelby County, Alabama taking aim at the Section 5 preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, and the Section 4 coverage provisions that spell out the jurisdictions that are subject to Section 5. The preclearance provision required certain jurisdictions, including several covered counties in New York, to submit new voting changes for federal review to ensure that they were not adopted with a discriminatory purpose, and will not negatively impact minority voter participation.

Shelby County argued that Section 5 is no longer required and claimed that Congress exceeded its powers when it reauthorized the law in 2006. Shelby County also argued that the law is intrusive on states and argues that its protections are no longer necessary in the 16 states where the law applies. Attorney General Schneiderman, along with Mississippi, North Carolina and California, provided a stark contrast to Shelby County’s contentions, asserting that Section 5 is an appropriate exercise of Congressional power.

According to the brief, "The Section 5 preclearance process has helped bring about tremendous progress in the covered jurisdictions and continues to be a vital mechanism to assist Amici States in working to achieve the equality in opportunities for political participation that is a foundational principle of our democracy."

Copyright 2006-2016 The Hudson Valley Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

              Let Your Voice Be Heard ... Fill Out the Reader Response Form Below
Your name:
Your email:
Article Title:
Comment Text:

*Posts do not appear immediately


Are you planning a summer vacation this year?
Not sure



HEADLINES | Copyright © 2006-2016 Hudson Valley Press. All rights reserved. | Use of this site indicates your agreement to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy for our Site. |