Court Unanimously Upholds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act
Feature Story by Antoine Morris - 6/9/2008
On May 30th, a federal court upheld the constitutionality of a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain states and localities to submit changes in voting procedures to the federal government for approval.
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to eliminate discriminatory voting practices by state and local governments. The law has been renewed and amended several times since it was passed, most recently with a 25-year renewal passed in 2006 and set to expire in 2031.
After signing the 2006 reauthorization, President Bush said, "In the four decades since the Voting Rights Act was first passed, we've made progress toward equality, yet the work for a more perfect union is never ending."
A week later, a municipal utility district in Texas filed a suit in an effort to "terminate its obligation to seek preclearance of voting changes in the future."
Under Section 5 of the Act, states and localities with a history of discrimination are required to submit changes in their voting process and procedures to Department of Justice or a federal D.C. district court for approval or "preclearance." These jurisdictions must demonstrate to federal authorities that the proposed voting change does not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.
All Texas jurisdictions are subject to Section 5.
The Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (Northwest Austin MUD) in Austin, Texas claimed that the kind of discrimination that warranted Section 5 enforcement in Texas has long been remedied. The utility district claimed that the preclearance process is neither "necessary or constitutionally proper" and is a federal infringement on the "sovereign" interests of the Northwest Austin MUD and Texas.
One of many municipal utility districts in Texas, the Northwest Austin MUD is a local authority that regulates water services, park maintenance, and other services in a set geographic area. Board members are elected through a process compliant with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The federal court found the utility district's arguments unpersuasive and rejected its claim to be exempt from Section 5 enforcement.
In its opinion, the court said "it was impossible to conclude that Section 5 imposes any meaningful burden on the District, much less an unconstitutional one," citing the District's eight preclearance requests, which in its two-decade history only cost the District an average of $233 per year compared to its annual budget of nearly half a million dollars, as not sufficiently burdensome."
Also included in the court's opinion was a list of voting rights violations from 1982 to 2005 that illustrated how often discriminatory practices in Texas and elsewhere have occurred. The opinion reflected the extensive effort of the civil rights community to introduce before Congress the extensive record of discrimination in voting.
In addition, the opinion said if the utility district's claims were accepted, the ruling would require "Congress [to] exceed its enumerated powers" by tailoring Section 5 coverage to every single village, utility district, and special purpose district.
Most importantly, the court ruled that in order to vigorously enforce the 15th Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to vote, Congress was justified in extending section 5 "to protect minorities from continued racial discrimination in voting" when it reauthorized the Act in 2006.
Voting rights advocates praised the ruling.
"That a small utility district would think that it could take us off the path to political fairness by rehashing previously discredited arguments is unfortunate, but the Court declined that invitation," said John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
"We applaud the Court for validating the critically important decision of Congress to reauthorize Section 5. This multi-year effort was a top priority for the civil rights community and we could not be more pleased with the outcome," said Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
The Northwest Austin MUD is expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court within the next two months.
Related Links
