The Protection the Supreme Court Took From Voters – And Why We Still Need ItThe Voting Rights Act turned 60 last week. Its most powerful protection was gutted and we’re seeing the consequences.
Last week marked 60 years since the Voting Rights Act became law — a landmark moment in the fight for multiracial democracy. But today, one of the law’s most important protections is gone. And in places like Alabama, we’re seeing exactly why we still need it. What was Preclearance?Preclearance was a guardrail. It required states with a history of voter suppression to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws — things like moving polling places, limiting early voting, or redrawing districts. For decades, it worked. It stopped thousands of discriminatory policies before they could do harm. What Happened?In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted preclearance in Shelby County v. Holder. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the “blight of racial discrimination in voting” had been largely cured, a conclusion many experts and advocates warned underestimated ongoing barriers. The Court struck down the formula that determined which states needed oversight, claiming it was outdated, and effectively ended preclearance overnight. The result? States no longer had to prove their changes weren’t discriminatory. And states like Texas and North Carolina immediately took full advantage. Polling places were closed. Voter rolls were purged. ID laws were passed. All in the name of “integrity.” But the impact fell hardest on Black and Brown voters. What Now?Without preclearance, the burden shifted. Now it’s up to voters and civil rights groups to prove discrimination after the fact — a costly, years-long fight that often comes too late to prevent harm. One of the only tools left is Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act. It allows courts to put states back under federal oversight if they’ve shown a pattern of discrimination. Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to stay sharp, fight back, and never miss a beat in the battle for democracy. That’s what’s at stake in Alabama right now. After courts found Alabama’s congressional map intentionally discriminated against Black voters and violated the VRA, a court-drawn map was used in 2024. That fair map led to the election of Rep. Shomari Figures, which marks the first time two Black members of Congress have served together in the state’s history. Civil rights groups who brought the case asked the court to reinstate preclearance in Alabama for future maps. But the Trump Department of Justice opposed the effort, calling preclearance a “drastic departure” from federalism. The message? Requiring federal oversight would infringe on states’ rights. On August 7, federal judges rejected the request to put Alabama’s maps back under preclearance, but ordered the current map be used until the next redistricting cycle in 2030. Why That’s a ProblemPreclearance existed because states like Alabama had earned the federal government’s distrust. It wasn’t about punishing the past — it was about protecting the future. And we still need it today. The Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act. Congress hasn’t fixed it. And now the DOJ is signaling it may not even enforce the protections that remain. The case in Alabama is a warning. The right to vote was never guaranteed. It was fought for — and it must be defended again. What You Can DoCall your U.S. Senators – tell them to vote YES on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and NO on the SAVE Act: (202) 224-3121. In solidarity, Fair Fight Action Team FFA: Paid for by Fair Fight Action.
|
EXPERIENCE THE JOURNEY OF... KIM, TIM AND MOLLY MYERS AS THEY TRAVEL TO CHINA TO BRING HOME ANNIE!
Tuesday, August 12, 2025
The Protection the Supreme Court Took From Voters – And Why We Still Need It
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.