The Center for Law and Social Justice Decries Recent Supreme Court Decision Disabling the Voting Rights Act, and Creating Additional Hurdles for Affirmative Action and Employment Discrimination Challenges Brooklyn, NY - In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court today held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. In one fell swoop, the Court felled Section 4 and the powerful Section 5 which is widely regarded as the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Section 4 provides the “coverage formula” for the “covered jurisdictions” under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The “covered jurisdictions” in Section 5 included certain states and other locales, among them in New York City: the Bronx, New York and Kings counties. Section 5 required the “covered jurisdictions” to submit any change in voting procedures for preclearance to the Department of Justice, or alternatively to the federal district court in Washington, D.C. Today, the Supreme Court concluded that the “coverage formula” in Section 4 was inconsistent with current conditions and therefore unconstitutional. The “coverage formula” was based on whether or not a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or 1970s, or had low voter registration or lower turnout. In so ruling, Court stated, ”We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions." However, the decision effectively rendered Section 5 moot. Esmeralda Simmons, Esq., the executive director of the Center for Law and Social Justice (CLSJ) at Medgar Evers College, CUNY , stated, “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been the most powerful civil rights law ever enacted in the United States. Right here in New York City, the Center, for over two decades, has used section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to prevent voting rights discrimination against Black, Latino and Asian New Yorkers. That was the beauty of the Voting Rights Act — unlike most civil rights laws where you have to be discriminated against before you can file a claim, under Section 5, changes had to be “pre-cleared” by the federal government or a court before they could be put into practice. The Center will fight to reinvigorate the Voting Rights Act. We will join with others who believe that the protection of voting rights is critical to the defense of democracy in the USA.” The VRA decision came as a result of a challenge to constitutionality of both Section 4 and Section 5 filed by Shelby County, Alabama. Ironically, Alabama is notorious in southern civil rights history. Alabama is the home of Selma, the site of the “Bloody Sunday” beatings of civil rights demonstrators that served as the catalyst for the Voting Rights Act‘s enactment. Between 1982 and 2005, Alabama had the one of the highest rates of successful cases under Section 2 of the VRA. More recently, state legislators cooperating with FBI investigation captured conversations between members of the state legislature and their political allies discussing a gambling referendum derisively referring to Black people as “Aborigines” and expressing concern that if the measure on the ballot “Every Black, every illiterate would be bused [to the polls] on HUD financed buses.“ The federal district judge presiding over the trial where the recordings were introduced remarked that the “recordings represent compelling evidence that political exclusion through racism remains a real and enduring problem in Alabama. (See United States v. McGregor, 852 F. Supp. 1339, 1344-1348 (MD. AL 2011). The Voting Rights Act decision came a day after three other problematic decisions pertaining to civil rights. In the most watched of these cases, Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court heightened the standard that institutions of higher education with affirmative action programs must meet to survive legal challenges. In particular, the Court mandated that colleges must show that there was no “available, workable race-neutral” alternative available to them. Finding that the University of Texas had not shown this, the Court returned the case to the lower courts. In the other two cases, which involved claims of employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Court made it harder for workers to prove that they have suffered employment discrimination. In Vance v. Bell, in which a Black woman had accused her supervisor of racial harassment, the Court held that the person she had accused was a co-worker and a not a supervisor – a distinction that requires a higher burden of proof. In so ruling, Court rejected the definition of “supervisor” employed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the second case, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, a physician of Middle Eastern descent alleged that he had retaliated against after he complained of hostile treatment from a hospital supervisor because of religion and ethnic background. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy, noted that retaliation cases should have a higher standard than regular discrimination cases and declared that employees in such cases must prove that retaliation was not just a motivating factor, but the determinative factor in negative employment actions such as a demotion. “The Shelby, Fisher, Vance and Nassar cases,” stated CLSJ General Counsel, Joan P. Gibbs,” vividly demonstrate the reasons why Black people must stay on freedom and justice, to defend the gains of the past while challenging current issues such as voter suppression and stop and frisk.”
Posted on: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:52:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015