GOP Justices Gut Voting Rights Act in Partisan Decision

Have civil rights workers fought and died for nothing?

In an explosive, partisan decision today, the five Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have struck down the section [section four] of the Voting Rights Act setting formulae used to determine which state and local governments must comply with mandatory standards enforced by the U.S. Dept of Justice.

Four justices dissented in Shelby County v. Holder, et al [linked to full text of opinions], which challenges the 2006 Congressional reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Since 1965, the Dept of Justice has had to grant preclearance, prior approval, of state and local governments with a proven record of discrimination and voter obstruction.

This legislation protected the voting rights of millions of American citizens against discrimination and voter obstruction.

No more.

The decision in Shelby County v. Holder offers the opportunity of the U.S. Congress to enact new voting rights legislation.

This is of course a ludicrous status quo as the Republican Party-committed members of the Court know that the Republican Party has made voter obstruction a nationwide project with the objective to suppress the vote of minorities, the young, and other voters who refuse to vote Republican in elections.

No GOP Congress would ever allow civil rights legislation to be passed today.

The four justices in dissent paint an appalling picture of today's decision that elevates partisan politics over the sacred right of Congress to enforce the Constitutional Amendments which protect the liberties and rights of citizens against government oppression.

The five rightwing justices have demonstrated again that the U.S. Supreme Court is corrupt and dominated by a partisan five-to-four majority.

Writes Justice Ginsberg in dissent (p.32), with whom Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan join:

In the Court's view, the very success of [Section Five] of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy. Congress was of another mind. Recognizing that large progress has been made, Congress determined, based on a voluminous record, that the scourge of discrimination was not yet extirpated. The question this case presents is who decides whether, as currently operative, [Section Five] remains justifiable, this Court, or a Congress charged with the obligation to enforce the post-Civil War Amendments 'by appropriate legislation.'