Ballot Box Equality

Stuart Comstock-Gay

August 05, 2005

Stuart Comstock-Gay is Executive Director of the National Voting Rights Institute , which is a proud member of the coalition seeking to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

In 1965, only five months after John Lewis was beaten in the famous march on Selma, President Lyndon Johnson spurred Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act.  Only five months to pass what is one of the most important civil rights laws in U.S. history.  Only five months from outrage to one of the greatest bulwarks of democracy in America. 

It is difficult to imagine a law more important to American democracy and civil rights than the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  To find another law that more fundamentally altered the way American democracy works, you have to go back to the Civil War era 14th and 15th Amendments. The Voting Rights Act is that important. 

But like any victory, constant work is necessary to maintain it.  In August of 2007, unless action is taken now, certain sections of the VRA will expire. And quite frankly, their continuation is not a sure thing.  

A bit of background. The VRA has permanent provisions and temporary provisions.  Among the permanent provisions are Section 2, banning racial discrimination in voting nationwide, and Section 201, which bans literacy tests nationwide. Among the temporary provisions are Section 5, which requires certain state and local governments to “pre-clear” proposed changes in voting procedures that could negatively affect minority voters, Section 203, which requires language assistance in some jurisdictions for voters who are not literate or fluent in English, and Sections 6 through 9, which allow for federal examiners and observers of elections in certain districts, in order to determine whether or not violations of the Act have occurred.  It is these temporary provisions that we could lose.

Although voting discrimination in 2005 doesn’t involve public beatings on bridges, the full Voting Rights Act—including the about-to-expire temporary provisions—is just as necessary today as it has been in the past. 

We need pre-clearance to avoid outrages like the last-minute cancellation in 2001 of a municipal election in Kilmichael, Mississippi, by the all-white town council. In objecting to this change under Section 5, the Justice Department found that the cancellation occurred after after Census data revealed that African Americans had become a majority in the town. And enough black candidates had qualified to run so that—for the first time—the town council could have had an African-American majority.

We need the language provisions to keep the franchise fully open to all Americans. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund reports that voters are given misinformation like, “…learn English at home before you come out to vote.”  Yet, thanks to Section 203, New York City’s 20th District in 2001 elected John Liu, the first Asian American to be elected to citywide office in New York.  His election can clearly be attributed in part to the language provisions which allowed first-generation citizens to vote independently and privately. 

And the provision allowing for observers?  Department of Justice observers paid attention to an election in Boston recently. As a result, the department has begun proceedings against the city for failing to meet the Voting Rights Act needs of language minorities.  During the last election, observers were sent to locations in a total of 25 states, and the provision remains important in protecting the right to vote.

Last reauthorized in 1982, the temporary provisions’ 25 years are almost up.  While civil rights activists and many senators—including Edward M. Kennedy—have vowed to fight for reauthorization of the expiring sections, others have expressed outright opposition, and overall support is less clear.  Conservative commentator Abigail Thernstrom has argued simply that the time for the temporary provisions is past, and they ought not be reauthorized at all.  On Tuesday the 2nd of August, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said the administration was committed to reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, but wouldn’t comment about which parts.  Other leaders have offered similar “fuzzy” positions. 

Others have expressed their interest in making the temporary provisions permanent. This is a poison pill that needs to be avoided.  While permanency may seem wise on the surface, these temporary provisions must be narrowly tailored to address the ills they intend to cure.  If not narrowly tailored, there is a real possibility that the Supreme Court could rule them unconstitutional.  It is not clear the Supreme Court would consider permanent regulations, rather than time-limited remedies, to be narrowly tailored.

To fight the new forms of discrimination, the full Voting Rights Act remains necessary.  And it will take citizens from across the country contacting their legislators, writing letters to newspapers, and putting up a clarion call for renewal of all portions of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that voting rights in this country don’t regress.   

The effort to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act involves dozens of organizations and individuals already.  Check www.civilrights.org to find out more now.

America remains a great model for democracy.  But our model is not finished.  We need to continue to repair and rebuild it where it is broken.  The Voting Rights Act—all of it—is necessary for that work.