The attack on voting continues

Since President Obama’s election in 2008, there have been rumors that racism is over.

Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision declaring Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional shows the more conservative end of the bench is happy to march in that bullshit parade.

Section 4 contains a formula based on 1960s and ‘70s voter turnout that requires a select group of states and counties to request preclearance from the federal government before putting any new voting legislation into effect.

The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice Roberts, argues that because the formula is based on 40-year-old numbers it is defunct. The decision also cites numbers that show minority voter turnout to be much better in the states targeted by the formula than the national average.

But the region with the most heavily monitored voting laws would have better voter turnout than those not under federal scrutiny. The formula, and the VRA itself, are working in these regions. Stopping the process now is like canceling your gym membership as soon as your six pack starts to show.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion outlined several recent examples of the effective use of the VRA. In 2005, a Texas county was prevented from prosecuting two black students after they announced their candidacies. A town in Mississippi attempted to cancel elections all the way back in 2006 when an “unprecedented number” of black candidates were running for various offices.

Several counties were able to release themselves from scrutiny following 10 years without compromising citizens’ voting rights. Apparently the remaining states and counties find this route to be too taxing.

Critics are right: the Voting Rights Act formula is outdated. Not because “blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare,” but because cloaked disenfranchisement is becoming more widespread.

Following the 2012 election, statistical analysis showed that several states — including Indiana — had significant discrepancies between the popular vote and those actually elected to office.

Indiana is also the proud home to a voter ID law that could potentially disallow minorities, the poor and the elderly from voting. This past state congressional session, a bill was proposed that would have prevented Indiana students paying out-of-state tuition from voting here as well.

That disenfranchisement is an issue in Indiana and many other northern states speaks to Congress’ obligation to create a new formula that can account for subtler abuses of power against voters. It is Congress’ obligation to affect change in this realm — not the Supreme Court’s.

The current formula is flawed, but taking Section 4 away completely is a mistake.

Revoking the safety net will make further oversight of these and other regions increasingly difficult, leaving open heart surgery the only recourse where preventative diet and exercise would have done just fine.

Though the court has left the door open for Congress to amend the legislation, it is unlikely anything with the efficacy of the current section will be passed. We need to build from current legislation, not start from scratch.

With gerrymandering and voter ID laws as vivacious as ever, the Supreme Court has mistaken the lack of literacy tests for a lack of barriers to voting. Perhaps some of our justices need a literacy test of their own.

­— casefarr@indiana.edu