A Victory for Election Integrity


Election_Day_voting12_5608In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act that gave the race-baiting ballot box stuffers of the Left a distinct advantage in federal elections.

The court opinion in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is essentially an official finding from the highest court in the land that America is not the racist swamp of leftist myth.

The court finally recognized that the anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which gave the federal government a veto over changes in state election laws, may have been needed when the law was enacted in 1965, but no longer.

Catherine Engelbrecht, president of Houston-based True the Vote, a good government group, praised the decision:

For decades, voters in various states, counties and boroughs have been punished for the sins others committed in a bygone era. Washington has treated whole segments of this nation as guilty until proven innocent. Ideological bureaucrats have used this law to exact a form of racial justice on their presumed enemies while ignoring the country’s demands for basic election integrity measures. Thankfully, the Court stripped Washington of a power that was only being used as a weapon today.

J. Christian Adams described the court opinion, which clears the way for enforcement of much-needed state-level voter ID laws, as “one of the most important decisions in decades.”

In terms of how the game of politics is played in this country, he’s right.

The Voting Rights Act is what unscrupulous Attorney General Eric Holder used to block states from implementing voter ID laws aimed at combating election fraud. The Left relies on fraud to win closely contested elections.

Section 5 of the statute relegated states and localities to second-class status by presuming they were too corrupt and racist to administer elections fairly. The section requires state and local governments in certain parts of the nation to get approval from the Justice Department or a federal court – called pre-clearance – before making changes in their voting procedures. Changes can include anything from moving a polling place to changing district lines in a county. The way the law is interpreted even lowly bond referendums in affected areas require pre-clearance.

The section requires a state, county, or local government entity to demonstrate to federal authorities that the voting change in question does not have a racially discriminatory purpose and is not “retrogressive,” which means that it will not make minority voters worse off than they were prior to the change.

Before the high court ruling, elections in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia were subject to pre-clearance. Section 5 also covered various counties across the nation: four in California; five in Florida; three in New York (all within New York City); 40 in North Carolina; and two in South Dakota. It covered two townships in Michigan and 10 townships in New Hampshire.

Congress approved the statute months after the nation witnessed Alabama state troopers attacking civil rights marchers in Selma in March 1965. Lawmakers reasoned it was needed because many state and local officials routinely discriminated against black Americans in the voting process, making it difficult for them to cast their ballots.

Echoing the language of the Fifteenth Amendment, the Act forbade states from enacting any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Congress gained the power to abolish the imposition of poll taxes in federal elections when the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified in January 1964.

Section 4 of the Act laid down the criteria under which offending states and political subdivisions were covered by the statute. Initially, the section covered jurisdictions that had maintained “a test or device” as a prerequisite to voting as of Nov. 1, 1964, and had under 50 percent voter registration or turnout in the 1964 presidential election. “Such tests or devices included literacy and knowledge tests, good moral character requirements, the need for vouchers from registered voters, and the like,” according to the court opinion.

Congress reauthorized the law in 1970 and 1975, tinkering with the criteria used in Section 4. By 1975 the formula was ensnaring jurisdictions that had a voting test and under 50 percent voter registration or turnout as of 1972. That was the last time Congress updated the formula. In 2006, more than 40 years after voting tests were banned, Congress reauthorized the legislation for 25 years — with its outdated formula intact.

But Section 4 outgrew its usefulness in the eyes of the court. According to the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision, the court took action because in 2006 Congress “reenacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day.”

Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.

The ruling recognizes that widespread systematic voting discrimination is a distant memory. Today black Americans fully participate in the democratic process by voting, running for, and winning elective office at every level of government up to and including the highest office in the land.

But this is bad news for the race industry which thrives on making mountains out of molehills.

Predictably, leftist demagogues and community organizers across the fruited plain are howling now that a key tool they used to frustrate electoral integrity efforts has been taken away.

Racial arsonist and MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton spoke of the court ruling as if the Jim Crow laws of the Old South were still in effect. The decision is “a devastating blow to Americans, particularly African-Americans, who are now at the mercy of state governments.” He angrily promised to mobilize his supporters to counteract the ruling.

Of course Congress may revisit the legislation and establish a new formula under Section 4. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) has reportedly vowed to lead the charge to “fix” the legislation.

Adams, bestselling author of Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, said it’s unlikely Section 4 will get fixed:

[T]he Supreme Court left almost no room to “fix” anything. Only in “exceptional circumstances” may the federal government have power to preclear state-election law changes. “Exceptional circumstances” is a term pulled from the jurisprudence to describe conditions blacks faced in 1964. Anyone with any sense knows those days are gone. Congressional Republicans should ignore the inevitable slurs from the racialist Left and find better things to do besides “fix” a law that the Supreme Court has found to be mostly unfixable and which has upset the constitutional order for the last couple of decades.

In the polarized current Congress, odds are much will be said about “fixing” the antiquated Voting Rights Act but not much will actually get done. Gridlock, in this case, may help to save the Republic.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • poptoy1949

    Normalcy at last and perhaps less voter fraud.

  • adumbrate

    It is a travesty. Voters will actually have to show who they are before taking on the greatest responsibility of being American. Shame.

    What a joke. There is no logic in this country today. The cheaters are made to seem rational and women like Paula Deen are freaks.

  • Adam

    Liberals are screaming because they do not comprehend anything. they are Obama’s useful idiots who are creating a distraction from real issues such as immigration and the IRS scandal.

  • davarino

    Now voters will have to show ID to prove they are who they are. If the left cant win elections where there is integrity in the voting booth, then maybe they should think about going to some other country that Jimmy Carter deems worthy.

    • defcon 4

      Maybe they would all be happier in any one of the wonderful, tolerant islamofascist states of the world.

    • shinny_head

      The Voting Rights Act served a useful purpose for years. But in its most recent usage (last 10 years or so) it was used to control and suppress southern voting in general.

      As with Reconstruction (1865-1877) of the South there were both good and abuses of the system. Reconstruction was also used to punish the South and continue the poverty, prevent economic expansion and industrialization after total economic collapse from Civil War. Reconstruction was ended with the Compromise of 1877.

      My hope is that the 9 States that were subject to the Voting Rights Act will act responsibly. It must be noted that there were many voting rights abused in the past. My uncle told me of one specific case where a older black man in front of him in a voting line was given a section of the Mississippi Constitution and asked to interpret it in common languasge on the spot. Of course he could not and he was denied the right to vote that day. My uncle who is Caucasian was not subjected to the literacy test.

  • DOYOULOVEAMERICA

    Real Americans have a way to counter the parasites that are destroying this country, right wing death squads made up of ex Military snipers….

  • RogerDane

    Patriotic Americans, thinking Americans and those who recollect historically significant moments in America’s great history are doomed. We are not enough, we are not energized and we will continue to decline in significance (if possible to be lower) while America becomes a banana republic with an wily anti-American imbecile at its helm.

  • sundance69

    I live in Atlanta and if you want to see what the Voters Right Act can do just look at what it has done to the voting precinct’s around the city, they look like ink blots rather than election precincts and they use this law to block all attempts to enforce voter ID laws which Ga. has passed also. The surrounding counties use picture ID when we vote but not in Atlanta. The Dems are squealing now, John Lewis ever has a dagger in his heart now. What Bullshit…….. Wonder what Eric Holder will pull to get around this one.

  • tagalog

    Libs aren’t very worried about the Voting Rights Act decision. After all, they got another decision striking down voter ID, so they can get all the dead people in every cemetery in the country to vote for their candidates.

  • The Dead Critic

    Next up, Affirmative action…..

  • DebRollin

    Yes, The WH had something on John Roberts too, to let Obamacare Stand.

  • Daniel Earley

    You’re just a puppet of FOX and talk radio. We don’t need more Democrat voters as most Americans ARE Democrat. There is no left or right, dummy. Just Americans, mostly Democrat, a few Original Republicans, a few tea party Republicans, bought and paid for by the 1% that controlled this nation under Bush. They’ve done nothing but drag on our economy and its my hope that 2014 will free our congress from these blackmailing traitors. Taking away civil rights will only help our turnout. What Obama can’t get done, Hillary will. Big money got into tea party politics. The Constitution was written to protect us from big money investments like them. We can vote them back to Hell….http://www.news4jax.com/politics/Immigration-reform-closer-to-Senate-approval/-/1875986/20724042/-/il6cvb/-/index.html

  • GUEST

    So, how will the dead be able to vote? Call Eric HOLDER, GRANNY WOULD HAVE VOTED DEMOCRAT…

  • defcon 4

    The decision is already being challenged — at least according to Rachel Maddow’s unbiased “news” program.