SCOTUS on Voting Rights: All Or Nothing

Many people are upset that the Supreme Court has overturned section four of the Voting Rights Act because they believe, with good cause (see dissenting opinion), that the nine states and the additional districts it targets will use their restored sovereignty to enact voting laws that will effectively discourage registration and turn-out for minority citizens.  The court is being attacked for opening the door for these States to enact laws that may be in violation of the 15th amendment without having to be screened for racial discrimination by the Department of Justice before they come into effect.  Now, the laws will have to challenged in court before being scrutinized (like in the other 41 states), as opposed to being scrutinized by default without anyone even challenging them.

The majority opinion does not claim that discrimination by race no longer exists (although it does cite how much progress there has been toward equality), or even that it doesn't expect any "back-sliding" toward Jim Crow.  Rather, it explains that the formula to determine which states are singled out for special DOJ scrutiny no longer captures all or exclusively the biggest offenders.  Some states which have relatively "clean" records in recent times are still facing extra scrutiny, whereas five states not singled out have even worse records of violations than eight of the nine states that are.

This implies either that the formula should be adjusted to include additional states who are worse offenders than those currently included, or it must be struck down for its arbitrary application to only a subset of the group of states that are attempting to circumvent the 15th amendment.  As the Supreme Court does not have the power to modify a law to expand coverage, its only option was to strike it down and expect that Congress will revise the law more accurately to reflect current conditions.  Given that the law was renewed in 2006 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House and signed by a Republican president, and given the public's near-universal support for equal voting rights, it should be easy for Congress to get this done (and it might even help out their horrendous approval ratings).

This court decision has provided a powerful impetus for Congress to pass new legislation to protect voting rights for all Americans, not just those in states who were the biggest offenders in 1965.  Furthermore, this is an excellent opportunity to add in provisions specifically tailored to address "second generation" barriers to voting that have effectively blocked minority representation despite near parity of access to the ballot achieved by the VRA.

From one perspective, this was a blow to the cause of equal representation.  From another perspective, by shattering the status quo, this could serve to draw national attention to ongoing racist abuses by states who managed to avoid being included in section four as written, as well as modern indirect methods of disenfranchisement.  Hopefully, that national attention will lead to a solution that is more extensive, inclusive, equally enforced, and currently relevant than the original VRA.