In a 5-4 decision a divided Supreme Court has stuck down an integral part of the Voting Rights Act earning immediate shock and fury from civil rights advocates, according to USA Today.
The court, divided along ideological lines, ruled that the criteria to determine which states required federal oversight prior to changing their voting laws was outdated and no longer applicable. The court did not eliminate the provision of the Voting Rights Act that allows for the federal oversight so it is possible that if Congress were to update the criteria used to determine which states require oversight that the law could remain intact. Although experts believe that passing such an update would be near impossible given the contentious makeup of the current Congress, according to the Washington Post.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who was backed in the majority by the four other conservative justices, wrote for the majority.
"Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices," Justice Roberts wrote. "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."
Writing for the minority was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who made the argument that although progress has definitely been made to curb discrimination in voting that it still exists and the majority simply ignored recent efforts to interfere with the rights of minority voters, according to Politico.
"After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support," Ginsburg wrote. "In my judgment, the court errs egregiously by overriding Congress's decision."
Ginsburg argued that the majority's view of a lack of cases of discrimination representing that the VRA was no longer necessary was false, instead the lack of discrimination proves the law was working.
"In the Court's view, the very success of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy," Ginsburg wrote. "If the statute is working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute. In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime."
John Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, spoke with USA Today about his disapproval with the Supreme Court's decision.
"The Supreme Court has effectively gutted one of the nation's most important and effective civil rights laws," Greenbaum said. "Minority voters in places with a record of discrimination are now at greater risk of being disenfranchised than they have been in in decades. Today's decision is a blow to democracy."
Civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton also expressed his dismay with the decision.
"I think what we must do is really put pressure on Congress now to deal with this," Sharpton said. "This is a devastating blow to those of us that need that protection, especially given the voter suppression schemes that we saw in 2012."
The VRA was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson to eliminate discriminatory practices such as literacy tests and poll taxes. The states that were determined to require extra federal oversight were ones that had shown to have a particularly harsh record toward civil rights, according to USA Today.
Every time the VRA has come up for renewal in recent years it has passed Congress easily. Justice Antonin Scalia drew criticism by saying that the wide margins the vote has received was "perpetuation of racial entitlement," according to NBC News.
"Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes," Justice Scalia said.
