Times Change
And Verrilli Admitted As Much
Posted: March 6, 2013
The question on Feb. 27 resonated like a thunderclap in the night. As prelude to the most riveting exchange of a brisk 70-minute oral argument about the ongoing need for, and continuing constitutionality of, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice John Roberts clicked off a number of remarkable facts suggesting racial disparities in voting were far greater in Massachusetts than in Mississippi. And then he directed this query to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli:
“Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?”
Mr. Verrilli answered “No.” Confronted by such declarative data as cited by Chief Justice Roberts, what else could he say? The evidence is clear: After laboring under the constraints of this law for nearly a half-century, the Deep South — Virginia included — is no different than the rest of the country when it comes to minority access to the polls. And in some instances, its record is far better.
Take Mississippi, once ground zero (along with Alabama) of segregation and Jim Crow. As columnist George Will observed, not only is its rate of voter turnout — blacks compared with whites — the best in the nation, but Mississippi also boasts more black elected officials than any other state in the nation. And not just more per capita, but more — period.
“Times change,” as Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said last week — and on no issue and in no place is that more evident than on voting rights in the Deep South. And yet its states and jurisdictions must still go, hat in hand, to Washington any time they desire a change in election law.
So times don’t change for progressives, Mr. Will wrote, citing Section 5:
“Section 5 was enacted as a temporary response to many measures employed, primarily in the South, to disenfranchise minorities. It requires nine states and some jurisdictions in others to get federal permission — ‘pre-clearance’ — for even minor changes in voting procedures. It has been extended four times, most recently in 2006 for 25 years. The 2006 House vote was 390-33, the Senate vote was 98-0; obviously, the political class’s piety about the act has extinguished thought about its necessity. But one reason ... for active judicial engagement in the protection of constitutional rights and arrangements ... is that the political class, with its majoritarian temptations, cannot be trusted to do so.”
So Section 5 was enacted as an emergency measure. Well, the emergency is over. Donald Verrilli, the government’s lawyer, admitted as much.
“Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?”
Mr. Verrilli answered “No.” Confronted by such declarative data as cited by Chief Justice Roberts, what else could he say? The evidence is clear: After laboring under the constraints of this law for nearly a half-century, the Deep South — Virginia included — is no different than the rest of the country when it comes to minority access to the polls. And in some instances, its record is far better.
Take Mississippi, once ground zero (along with Alabama) of segregation and Jim Crow. As columnist George Will observed, not only is its rate of voter turnout — blacks compared with whites — the best in the nation, but Mississippi also boasts more black elected officials than any other state in the nation. And not just more per capita, but more — period.
“Times change,” as Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said last week — and on no issue and in no place is that more evident than on voting rights in the Deep South. And yet its states and jurisdictions must still go, hat in hand, to Washington any time they desire a change in election law.
So times don’t change for progressives, Mr. Will wrote, citing Section 5:
“Section 5 was enacted as a temporary response to many measures employed, primarily in the South, to disenfranchise minorities. It requires nine states and some jurisdictions in others to get federal permission — ‘pre-clearance’ — for even minor changes in voting procedures. It has been extended four times, most recently in 2006 for 25 years. The 2006 House vote was 390-33, the Senate vote was 98-0; obviously, the political class’s piety about the act has extinguished thought about its necessity. But one reason ... for active judicial engagement in the protection of constitutional rights and arrangements ... is that the political class, with its majoritarian temptations, cannot be trusted to do so.”
So Section 5 was enacted as an emergency measure. Well, the emergency is over. Donald Verrilli, the government’s lawyer, admitted as much.