Nan Aron to Supreme Court: "Bring us Justice!"

Here's the video of Nan Aron's speech at today's rally in front of the Supreme Court in support of the Voting Rights Act.  Nan spoke just as oral arguments were concluding and the lawyers were leaving the Court - so she departed a bit from her prepared text (which can be found in the previous post to this Blog).

AFJ President Nan Aron's speech to the Voting Rights Act rally

At this hour AFJ President Nan Aron is scheduled to address a rally in front of the Supreme Court in support of the Voting Rights Act.  This is the text of her remarks:

This is an extraordinarily important day for our country. The fate of one of the most vital tools ever created for political and social justice in America is being argued inside this Court.

At stake are the fundamental rights of millions of people of color, but also the integrity of our democracy and our willingness as a society to fulfill the promise of equality for every American.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to correct the blatant discrimination that prevented millions of Americans from exercising the most fundamental right in a democracy – the right to vote and choose the people who make our laws.

Today, in 2013, much has changed, but much remains to be done. No one who watched the concerted efforts to disenfranchise people of color in the last election can doubt that simple fact. The job is not yet done. We have not yet reached the end of the road.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act must continue as a viable tool for the protection of fundamental rights. It must remain in place if we are to preserve the gains made in the decades since the law was passed. Without it, we will inevitably slide backward into an era of deliberate voter suppression.

History has shown that the great power of this law is that it prevents discrimination from occurring in the first place. It doesn’t rely on challenges after elections have already occurred, when it’s too late. It not only stops discriminatory plans from taking effect, it deters them from being proposed at all.

Time and again during the 2012 election, we saw the value of the Voting Rights Act in action – in Texas, and Florida, and South Carolina, and Alabama.  The Court needs to understand that with the job half done and threats to the right to vote still fresh in our memories from the last election, Section 5 must be preserved.

Congress recognized this in 2006 when, backed by enormous amounts of evidence, it reauthorized the law by a unanimous vote in the Senate and by a vote of 390-33 in the House. The Constitution and, in particular, the 15th Amendment, say that it is the job of Congress to figure out how to prevent racial discrimination in voting. It would be an egregious step by this Court to shove aside Congress’ judgment and substitute its own. 

There is an unspoken covenant between the Court and the American people that it will respect the great American journey toward a better, more just society. That it will take us forward, not backward. No modern Court has ever struck down a cornerstone civil rights law. And, with the whole world watching, it should not -- and must not -- happen now.

We all wish we lived in a world where Section 5 is no longer necessary, but we are not there yet. To dismantle this tool for justice at a time when concerted efforts to suppress voting and disenfranchise people of color are on the upswing would represent a willful denial of the hard realities of life in America in 2013.

Ironically, today a statue honoring Rosa Parks is being dedicated in the Capitol Building. On the same day we erect a monument to hard-won rights, we should not contemplate the dismantling of the very law that protects those rights.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act must be preserved and this case must be won.  Thank you.

Find out more about why we still need the Voting Rights Act

Later this afternoon on Justice Watch: Four legal scholars analyze today's oral arguments.

Day of argument, analysis and action on the Voting Rights Act

Today the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a challenge to a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act.  AFJ is ready:

• We'll be at a mass rally in front of the court to support the Voting Rights Act. We hope you’ll join us.
• AFJ President Nan Aron will be speaking at the rally. Check back here at 10:30 a.m. for the text of her remarks.
• Later this afternoon, four legal scholars will provide comprehensive analysis of the arguments here at Justice Watch.
• On Friday, when the Supreme Court releases audio of the arguments, we'll add excerpts.

Read more about the Voting Rights Act on our website here.

The whole world is watching

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 21 other worldwide human rights leaders tell Supreme Court: Uphold the Voting Rights Act

One of the most memorable moments during the long struggle against apartheid in South Africa came in May, 1994, on the day Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as President. Standing beside Mr. Mandela, another hero of that struggle, Archbishop Desmond Tutu proclaimed, "We are free today! We are free today! All of us, black and white together!"
 

Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Nearly 20 years later, Archbishop Tutu is speaking out for one of the most fundamental freedoms in the United States: the right to vote. He has joined with 21 other prominent human rights leaders from around the world to sign an open letter to the Supreme Court. They are urging the Court to uphold a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. As they note in the letter: "America's leadership in voting rights has been a beacon of hope for millions around the world who have made their own sacrifices for freedom and democracy."

Alliance for Justice is honored to join with the Institute for Policy Studies and the NAACP in sending the letter to the Supreme Court and distributing it to the public. Our joint statement, and a link to the full letter, follow:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 25, 2012 - In an unprecedented show of international interest in a Supreme Court case, 22 of the world's most prominent human rights leaders want the justices to know: The whole world is watching. This week the United States Supreme Court hears a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark American civil rights law.

Those leaders, from 22 countries on five continents, including South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, sent an open letter to the Court urging the justices to uphold a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The letter was released prior to the Court’s oral arguments by the Institute for Policy Studies, Alliance for Justice and the NAACP.

"Beyond your borders, the global march toward justice will suffer grievous harm should you surrender to those who seek to disenfranchise American citizens," the letter says. "We urge you to heed the United States Congress' judgment that continued federal enforcement of the voting rights guaranty is appropriate and necessary."

"On Wednesday, the whole world will once again be watching as the Supreme Court deliberates over one of the most fundamental rights for people everywhere: the right of all people to vote," said John Cavanagh, Director of the Institute for Policy Studies.

"The Voting Rights Act is the keystone in the arch of protection for people of color in the United States," said Nan Aron, President of Alliance for Justice. "This letter makes clear that the law also is a beacon of hope for people around the world. We call on this Court to recognize that the Voting Rights Act is as necessary now as it was on the day it became law."

"Voting is the cornerstone of any democracy," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP, "We live in a world of ever-increasing diversity. Every nation, including the United States, must seek the best means of protecting the rights of each minority, regardless of the size of that group. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has proven to be the best tool for ensuring all Americans are full and equal members of our democracy. We must make sure it is always available to ensure the integrity of our elections."

"The possibility that the conservative wing of the Supreme Court will eviscerate the 1965 Voting Rights Act threatens the ability of Americans of color to freely participate in their government, erasing years of struggle and the sacrifices of many," said Julian Bond, chairman emeritus of the NAACP. "The United States would lose whatever standing we have gained in recent years, and our country would be held in ridicule worldwide."

The court is hearing a challenge to Section 5 of the Act. This part of the law requires certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain advance approval before changing voting rules or procedures. Covered jurisdictions that demonstrate a record of applying their voting rules fairly and equitably can apply to be exempted from this provision.

The letter cited recent efforts to restrict voting during the American presidential election, noting that "the widespread efforts to enact new voting restrictions, with known and intended discriminatory effects, confirms that America still has need of flexible federal power to halt new attempts at disenfranchisement."

The letter was signed by human rights leaders from:
Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Italy, Kenya, Liberia, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, United Kingdom.

• Read the full letter
• Read more about why we still need the Voting Rights Act

Help protect the Voting Rights Act – and find out what happened during the arguments

One week from today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case challenging a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  That provision, known as Section 5, requires certain jurisdictions to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before they change voting rules or procedures.

The Voting Rights Act was, and remains, the keystone in the arch of civil rights protection for people of color.  As our overview of the issues makes clear, that provision is needed now as much as ever.

FEB. 26: TWITTER TOWN HALL

On the day before the case is heard, join in a Twitter Town Hall about the Voting Rights Act.

FEB. 27: RALLY AT THE COURT

AFJ is part of a coalition working to protect the Voting Rights Act. Those efforts include a rally in front of the Supreme Court at 9:00 AM. AFJ President Nan Aron is among the scheduled speakers.  Get the details here.

FEB. 27: ANALYSIS ON JUSTICE WATCH

Then, in the hours after the argument, check back here at Justice Watch for comprehensive analysis. Legal experts will be posting here about key issues raised by the case, including:

• Whether the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 still need to be covered.
• Whether the geographic reach of the statute is justified.  Does it include too many places?  Does it include too few places?
• What has happened since the Court last took up the Voting Rights Act in 2009?
• What deference should the Court give to congressional findings of fact?

Guest bloggers include Prof. Franita Tolson of Florida State University, Prof. William Yeomans of American University and Prof. Bertrall Ross of the University of California Berkeley School of Law.

If the Supreme Court makes audio of the oral arguments available in time, we'll include relevant excerpts with the Blog posts.

Rick Scott Not Dead, Voter Fraud Not a Threat

Justice Anthony Kennedy last week stayed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that new electoral registration requirements in Arizona are prohibited under federal law. Voters in Arizona, a laboratory for anti-immigrant policies, passed Proposition 200 in 2004, requiring voters to offer proof of citizenship. Opponents immediately identified the proposal as anti-immigrant and a threat to Latino civil rights.

On Wednesday, supporters of Proposition 200 asked Justice Kennedy to stop the Ninth Circuit ruling from coming into effect, at least until the end of this election year (Justice Kennedy is tasked with handling emergency motions from the Ninth Circuit). The Supreme Court has addressed the measure before, allowing it to remain in place through the 2006 midterm elections. But the Court did so without deciding whether or not the requirement was barred by the 1993 Voting Rights Act (VRA). Now that the Ninth Circuit has declared the measure void under the VRA, Justice Kennedy is requesting additional briefs on the matter. The Court may soon have an opportunity to clarify the legality of Arizona’s voting registration requirements. Such a decision would necessarily impact voters in states like Florida, Virginia, and Texas, all of which have passed similar voter ID laws.

Voter ID laws targeted at minority communities have been top policy priorities for certain state legislatures since 2011. Florida Governor Rick Scott is pushing a voter purge, claiming it is necessary to remove non-citizens from voter lists. Although Scott claims that state officials are unlikely to purge legitimate voters, the governor himself was forced to cast a provisional ballot in 2006 when Florida officials mistakenly thought he was deceased. In Wisconsin, where a recent voter ID law has not yet taken effect, many voters were nonetheless required to produce identification during the recent gubernatorial recall election.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, based on the documented efforts to disenfranchise and intimidate minority voters in many places across the country. Because that case, Shelby County v. Holder, squarely addresses the constitutionality of the VRA, the Supreme Court is likely to hear an appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s decision during its 2012-13 term.

In the meantime, given the expedited briefing schedule set by Justice Kennedy, the Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit ruling on Arizona’s voter ID provision could affect voting in the current election cycle in Arizona, and potentially in other jurisdictions with similar voter ID provisions.

While we await word from the Court, it is worth remembering that, as Florida ACLU Executive Director Howard Simon pointed out, there are more shark attacks in Florida than cases of voter fraud.

A Victory for Voting Rights

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled today that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act remains constitutional. The case, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, is an important victory for advocates of fair voting practices. In siding with the attorney general, the court eloquently and powerfully bolstered the rights of Shelby County citizens to vote in elections free from racial discrimination.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and reauthorized in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006, requires six states and numerous local jurisdictions to seek “preclearance” for any changes to their electoral system because of past voting discrimination on the basis of race. For example, last year the U.S. Department of Justice refused clearance of both South Carolina and Texas’s Voter ID laws under section 5. Both states are bringing suit to challenge the justice department’s actions. Texas is directly challenging the constitutionality of section 5.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any state from adopting electoral procedures that undermine minority voting rights, is also litigated with some frequency, but it is section 5 that has become a lightning rod for conservatives and states’ rights advocates, because it mandates additional scrutiny and oversight of particular states’ electoral activities. There are numerous section 5 suits currently percolating through the lower courts, undoubtedly because the Supreme Court’s conservative majority indicated in its 2009 decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Co. v. Holder that it would be receptive to such challenges. Earlier this year, while refraining from ruling on the constitutionality of section 5, the Supreme Court issued a terse unsigned opinion directing a district court in San Antonio to give greater deference to racially gerrymandered electoral maps drawn by the Texas state legislature.

Next stop: the Supreme Court?

When Shelby County appeals the decision to the Supreme Court, as it inevitably will, the case could become the vehicle that the conservative majority uses to strike down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court ultimately reverses the D.C. Circuit’s decision in this case and rules section 5 unconstitutional, it will be through no fault of the lower court. Judge Tatel, writing for the two-judge majority, has taken a careful look at the legislative record and produced a carefully reasoned and thoughtful opinion.

The opinion begins by acknowledging the Supreme Court’s skepticism about the continued constitutionality of section 5: “The Supreme Court warned that the burdens imposed by section 5 may no longer be justified by current needs and that its geographic coverage may no longer sufficiently relate to the problem it targets.” In other words, the question before the court in this case was whether “Section 5 remains a ‘congruent and proportional remedy’ to the 21st century problem of voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions,” and whether “Congress exceed[ed] its constitutional authority when it reauthorized section 5” in 2006.
After carefully reviewing the legislative record, the D.C. Circuit’s answer to the first question is yes -- section 5 remains congruent and proportional -- and its answer to the second question is no -- Congress did not exceed its authority.

In deferring to Congress’ reasoned judgment, the court noted that "Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered and acted pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which entrust Congress with ensuring that the right to vote--surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution--is not abridged on account of race.” In evaluating the congruence and proportionality of section 5, the court underscored the existence of the Act’s “bailout” provisions, which were liberalized in 1982 to allow any jurisdiction with a “clean” voting rights record over the previous 10 years to be relieved of its section 5 preclearance obligations. These provisions render section 5 relatively flexible and responsive, capable of adjustment as the circumstances on the ground change, yet strong and firm to protect voters when the circumstances remain sadly the same.

In the end, the opinion stands as a testament to the importance of judicial restraint. The court states at the outset, “Although our examination of the record will be probing, we remain bound by fundamental principles of judicial restraint. Time and time again the Supreme Court has emphasized that Congress’s laws are entitled to a ‘presumption of validity.’” And in affirming the constitutionality of section 5, the court concluded, “we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the People’s elected representatives.” We can only hope that the Supreme Court exercises commensurate judicial restraint in this case, and various other cases currently before it.