• About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Benefit Hub for Subscribers Only
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • News
  • Culture
  • Mental Health
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Disability
  • Webinars
Find/Post Jobs
  • Home
  • News
  • Culture
  • Mental Health
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Disability
  • Webinars
No Result
View All Result
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good
No Result
View All Result
Home News

SCOTUS Strikes Down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act

Logan KeziahbyLogan Keziah
April 7, 2019
in News, Politics
0
ADVERTISEMENT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on PinterestShare via EmailShare on Reddit

by Logan Keziah

supreme courtOn Tuesday, June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down what some consider to be one of the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 4, is the part of the Voting Rights Act that was designed to protect minority and vulnerable voting demographics from being targeted in voter suppression efforts. The formula included in this section subjected many states and jurisdictions, primarily in the south, to federal oversight regarding changes in elections laws, and redistricting maps. The overall reasoning behind the court’s decision to strike down the section can be summed up best by Chief Justice Roberts as quoted in NBC News:

Roberts cited census data showing that black voter turnout now exceeds white turnout in five of the six states originally covered by the law.

“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,” Read Full Article

The Court’s decision ultimately said congress needs to determine a more updated formula for determining which states would be required to get preclearance as outlined by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. At first glance, the decision doesn’t appears to recognize the progress that has been made in the past 48 years when the bill was first enacted.  Why not reevaluate the way preclearance states are determined. However let’s look deeper at the issue.

The republican controlled house and democratic controlled senate cannot seem to find common ground on anything. The house is busy debating unconstitutional regulations on women’s reproductive health and further voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This current climate prevents them from exerting energy on important and pressing issues that polls have shown are in the forefront of the American people’s minds on issues such as comprehensive background checks, Immigration reform, the student debt crisis, and the country’s unsteady economy. Congress could come together now and decide on a new formula to protect some of the most vulnerable individuals in the country from efforts to suppress their votes. However, this option does not seem remotely possible.

Secondly, should congress actively take up the job of developing a new formula for pre-clearance while many states will be free to move forward with legislation changing voting laws that disproportionately affect minority and vulnerable populations without having them checked by the Department of Justice. Research shows that States with pending voter ID legislation would disproportionately affect minority, senior, and student voters. Proposed legislation seeks to shorten early voting, do away with same day registration, and/or other measures that ultimately restrict voting access. Many of the states can now push forward with their conservative cooked up legislation without barriers.

The full implications of the Supreme Court’s decision is difficult to determine, and ultimately Congress does have the ability to develop a new measure to protect these vulnerable populations from discriminatory voting law changes.  However, it is highly unlikely. As far as the court’s ruling,  Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. supported striking section 4 from the Voting Rights Act, and Justices Ruth Bader, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
ADVERTISEMENT
Previous Post

Facebook Admits Data Breach of 6 Million Users

Next Post

DOMA Repealed Whats Next?

Logan Keziah

Logan Keziah

Logan Keziah is a News Correspondent for Social Work Helper. She is a BSW student at East Carolina University in Greenville who plans to go on to graduate school for a Masters in Social Work. She is actively involved in North Carolina politics, and is interested in policy, advocacy, social justice, and women's issues.

Related Posts

Do District-Based Elections For School Board Help Minority Candidates Get Elected?
News

NASW Opposes Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) Exams

May 22, 2023
5 Ways To Boost Employee Wellbeing
Health

5 Ways To Boost Employee Wellbeing

May 21, 2023
What is High Performance Culture and How to Create It
Business

What is High Performance Culture and How to Create It

May 21, 2023
Morgan State University Professor Anthony Estreet to be next CEO of NASW
News

Morgan State University Professor Anthony Estreet to be next CEO of NASW

May 23, 2023
Sex Trafficking Survivor Files Lawsuit Against Red Roof Inns
Human Rights

Sex Trafficking Survivor Files Lawsuit Against Red Roof Inns

May 21, 2023
When Reporters of Sexual Harassment Are Silenced By Advocacy Institutions the Harm is Far Worst
Education

When Reporters of Sexual Harassment Are Silenced By Advocacy Institutions the Harm is Far Worst

January 3, 2023
Next Post
DOMA Repealed Whats Next?

DOMA Repealed Whats Next?

Marriage Equality for LGBT Immigrants

Marriage Equality for LGBT Immigrants

Leave Comment
ADVERTISEMENT
What Can Be Done To Solve The Foster Care Crisis?

Ending the Therapeutic Relationship: Creative Termination Activities

May 19, 2023
Exploring Emotions: The Power of the Feelings Heart Exercise in Therapy

Exploring Emotions: The Power of the Feelings Heart Exercise in Therapy

May 19, 2023
Want to Work With Children: 5 Skills and Qualities You Should Be Working On

Want to Work With Children: 5 Skills and Qualities You Should Be Working On

May 19, 2023
ADVERTISEMENT

Connect With Us

Twitter
FlipboardInstagram
GET THE LATEST NEWS!
Subscribe
We hate spam and never share your details.
×

Thank you!

ADVERTISEMENT
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Instagram TikTok
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good

  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Buy Merch
  • Terms of Service

© 2022 Social Work Helper, PBC

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • News
    • Culture
    • Technology
    • Politics
    • Criminal Justice
    • Social Work
    • Education
    • LGBTQ
    • Technology
    • Disability
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Webinars
  • Career Center
  • Subscriber Benefit Hub
  • Subscribe
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Cart

© 2022 Social Work Helper, PBC

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Facebook
Sign In with Google
Sign In with Linked In
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Facebook
Sign Up with Google
Sign Up with Linked In
OR

Fill the forms below to register

*By registering into our website, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.