Ruth Ginsburg Not Surprised by Response to Ruling on Voting Rights Act, 'I Didn't Want to be Right'

Seizing an opportunity immediately following the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act Texas implemented one of the toughest Voter I.D. laws in the country, a move that did not surprise Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the slightest, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

Prior to the court's ruling certain states and regions with a history of civil rights infringement needed Federal approval before altering their election laws. By a decision of 5-4 the Supreme Court ruled that the method used to determine which areas were in need of additional federal oversight was outdated and could no longer be used. Congress has the ability to alter the law with a new formula to determine who needs oversight but they have yet to do so, according to the Washington Post.

The Justice Department has been making a recent effort to try to use a different part of the Voting Rights Act that was not struck down by the Supreme Court to rein in areas, like Texas, who previously needed advanced federal approval of their election laws, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

"The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn't make any sense to me," Ginsburg told the Associated Press. "And one really could have predicted what was going to happen. I didn't want to be right, but sadly I am."

Writing for the minority last month Ginsburg said that the court was making a mistake by overturning a law that had been reauthorized by Congress with enormous support every time that it had come up.

Attorney General Eric Holder was planning on asking a federal court in San Antonio to force Texas to receive advance approval before changing their election laws, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

"Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the court's ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law's remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected," Holder said.

In 2009 a case involving the Voting Rights Act made it to the Supreme Court. Ginsburg joined Chief Justice John Roberts in a ruling that left the Voting Rights Act intact but warned Congress that parts of the law were outdated and that they needed to be updated. Congress did nothing to update the law, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

"I think in the first voting rights case, there was strong impetus to come down with a unanimous decision with the thought that maybe Congress would do something about it before we had to deal with it again," Ginsburg told the Associated Press. "But I suppose with the benefit of hindsight, I might have taken a different view."

When discussing the 5-4 decision to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, in which she was in the majority, Ginsburg compared the decision to the one on the Voting Rights Act while taking a shot at Justice Antonin Scalia, who adamantly opposed the decision.

"Scalia, who really takes after the court for taking over legislative turf in same-sex marriage, doesn't make a whimper in voting rights, which passed 98 to nothing in the Senate and 330 to something in the House," Ginsburg said. "I didn't put that to him, but surely he's going to be asked the question, 'How do you distinguish the two?'"

The 80-year-old Ginsburg has been on the court for twenty years leaving some to wonder if she is ready to hang up her gavel and robe.

"My answer is, as long as I can do the job full steam, I will," Ginsburg told the Associated Press. "At my age, you can't say, you have to go year by year."

Real Time Analytics