Tag Archives: voting rights act of 1965

Linda Monk discusses the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Update)

Let’s go to school. I was confused about the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Was does it do? Why was it necessary? Why was Section Five so important? Constitutional scholar Linda Monk answers all of these questions and more.

As you listen to this podcast, I would encourage you to check out some references. First, here is the Voting Rights Act. Secondly, Linda mentions a case that I had never heard of – South Carolina verses Katzenbach (more information here). You should also review the 15th amendment, which gives Congress the power to make voting fair across the US. We discuss the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. Finally, we discuss Eric Holder’s bid to try and make sure that elections are fair for everyone.

This is a great interview and conversation. Sit back and enjoy.

Update: Linda Monk clarifies: “FYI, technically the Supreme Court did NOT decide to strike down Section 5 of the VRA; it struck down the threshold definition used in Section 4, which meant that Section 5 did not kick in.” As usual, I was kind of clueless. So, I went back to the Voting Rights Act and looked at Section 4. Of course, Linda is correct. Here’s how ScotusBlog puts it – Today the Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. That portion of the Act was designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring all state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures, no matter how small. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required. But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.

Redistricting confusion in the Lone Star State

There are several things that I truly hate about our political system. One of them is the intentional gerrymandering of voting districts which seems to occur in every state every 10 years. It doesn’t seem to matter who’s in power, the overall purpose of redistricting seems to be to openly suppress the vote of your opposition. I feel pretty confident this is what’s happening in North Carolina as well is Texas. The Supreme Court has rejected the redistricting map from Texas because it appears that it has violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For this conservative court to unanimously reject a redistricting map is extraordinary. Texas now has to scramble to get a map approved before its April first primary. This is a daunting task.

We need to adopt a computer-generated nonpartisan redistricting process. (This is a very detailed map using a nonpartisan process.) In my opinion, this is a must in order to take back our democracy from special interests which includes both Democrats and Republicans.