On June 2, the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge to Alabama’s Republican drawn legislative map–Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. State of Alabama. The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus (ALBC) is suing under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, arguing that that the Republican-controlled legislature has racially gerrymandered Alabama’s state legislative districts. Racial gerrymandering is the act of drawing voting districts that decrease the voting power of minorities. However, in this case race was not the only driving factor. The goal of this gerrymandering was to provide the most Republican seats possible, and to do this the Republicans needed to decrease the power of the African American vote by packing them in as few voting districts as they could.

This case is reminiscent of  Shelby v. Holder, in which the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, but chose to uphold Section 5. Section 4 established that certain areas of the country needed to be reviewed and subjected to targeted remedies. An example of this section in action was the suspension of the tricky literacy test that African Americans had to pass in order to be able to vote. Section 5 provides that any change that impacted voting in these areas has to be reviewed by the federal government. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposed burdens that are no longer necessary giving current race conditions. They held that the constraints in this section once made sense, but now represents an unconstitutional burden that conflicts with a state’s right to run its own elections. They cited that the original goal of the law was to narrow the voting turnout gap, which is no longer a problem.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a passionate dissent, in which she said that the law should have been upheld, citing that racial problems still existed. She admitted that “access to ballots” for African Americans was no longer a problem, but that they faced new issues, such as racial gerrymandering. This would make me think that Ginsburg would rule in favor of the ALBC in the current case, but she also said that the ruling in Shelby crippled Section 5. This means that she might be forced to rule against the ALBC without Section 4.

It would seem very unlikely that the court would rule in favor of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus after its ruling in Shelby. Shelby was decided along partisan lines with the conservative judges voting to strike down Section 4 while the more liberal judges all voted to uphold the section. There seems to be no apparent reason why any of the conservative judges would give any power back to the Voting Rights Act, especially considering the fact that Chief Justice Robert’s opinion in Shelby took away the power of Section 5. To rule in favor of the ALBC would be to backtrack on his ruling last year. This could possibly mean that the conservative judges may have been the ones who granted certiorari as an opportunity to say that this type of gerrymandering is constitutional or to strike down Section 5. Justice Thomas had even wanted to strike down Section 5 in Shelby.

Because racial gerrymandering is not likely to be prevented by the courts, the key to stopping it will be to stop all gerrymandering. As mentioned earlier in the article, gerrymandering is not used to give a disadvantage to any particular race, but to give a disadvantage to a particular political party. So in this case, Republicans wanted to hurt Democrats by putting as many African Americans, in as few districts as possible, in order to hurt their voting power for the Democratic Party. Democrats also gerrymander in states where they control the legislature, for example Maryland, so this is not a one party issue or a race issue. Both parties limit the voting power of the minority party in the states they control. Therefore the solution to this, and the racial gerrymandering that this case is about, is to create independent, bipartisan redistricting committees, such as the one in California. This will end partisan control of state congressional districts and lead to more fair and balanced districts, with no citizens having their voting power reduced by a mapmaker.

Image courtesy of [Cle0patra via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Count on the Supreme Court to End Racial Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Eric Holder shined a spotlight on state voting laws this week when he spoke out against voting bans for felons. The laws vary across states, with the harshest in Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia where felons are banned from voting for life, with the exception of individual permissions granted by the governor. Other states require ex-convicts to abide by a waiting period prior to regaining the vote, and others still have long and complicated re-registration procedures. To prove the severity of these laws, Holder pointed to Florida where anti-felon suffrage regulations ban 10 percent of the citizens from voting.

While a significant portion of the country is barred from voting, even after they finish their time in prison, these laws also disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans encompass a third of the approximately 5.8 million Americans who are barred from exercising their voting rights. Holder emphasized the large number of minorities affected by these restrictive laws, stating that they are remnants of the discriminatory policies enacted after the Civil War in order to keep minorities from going to the polls. And unfortunately their efforts were successful: 1 in 13 African-Americans are disenfranchised due to anti-felon voting bans.

Due to these, and other, restrictive policies, any attempt to protect minority voting rights is important, especially after key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were declared unconstitutional in a 2013 Supreme Court Ruling. The decision deemed Section 4 unconstitutional, which determined states with histories of voting discrimination would have to submit any changes to their voting laws to be pre-approved by the Attorney General. Without the coverage formula, states are able to pass discriminatory voting laws and the federal government cannot prevent the laws from going into effect.

In this context, the Voting Rights Act’s power is minimized, and any legislation that could help restore some minority voting rights would be welcome. Senator Rand Paul is currently drafting a bill that, if passed by Congress, would give many felons the right to vote in federal elections. However, Paul’s bill still contains restrictions: the proposed legislation restores the vote specifically to non-violent felons, which is a compromise with other legislators who are hesitant to restore these rights in the first place.

Holder also noted that the laws preventing ex-convicts from voting only enhances the stereotype and social stigma surrounding felons. Laws affecting felons, such as these restrictive voting ban, increase the feeling of separation from the rest of the community and increase the likelihood that felons will commit further crimes. Treating ex-convicts as second-class citizens is neither the proper nor the most successful way to reintegrate them into their communities.

These laws teach others that there are no second chances in American justice: once a convict, always a convict. Some may think that this is a good message to send, and that such laws could dissuade citizens from committing crimes in the first place. However, this philosophy mistakenly precludes the possibility that once felons finish their time, they could serve some benefit to the community. If societal attitudes continue to influence felons to go back to jail, states miss out on the potential for these people’s efforts to contribute to the workforce and other communal needs. By getting rid of some of the restrictive laws on felons after they return to normal life, they can better return as contributing citizens.

While Mr. Holder has no authority to enact changes to the laws himself, congressmen and state legislatures should listen up.

[Washington Post] [New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [The Hill] [Politico]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Holder Speaks Out Against Felon Voting Ban appeared first on Law Street.