By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I can only hope that the scourge of racism is finally
purged from Stewartstown and Pinkham's Grant. These are two of 10 New Hampshire
towns covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires
local officials to get permission, or "preclearance," on any changes
to their election laws.
Stewartstown has just over a thousand souls in it and is
99 percent white. In 1970, when it was put under the authority of Section 5,
the census listed two blacks out of its 1,008 residents. Pinkham's Grant boasts
nine residents, and it must also beg Washington for permission to make any
changes to how it votes.
In 1970, New Hampshire required all of its citizens to
pass a literacy test to register to vote. But Pinkham's Grant, Stewartstown and
the other eight towns also had low voter-participation rates. These two factors
-- a test of any kind for voting and participation rates under 50 percent --
met the criteria for oversight under Section 5.
But after years of onerous preparation, the state filed
for a "bailout" from the oversight provisions of Section 5 in
November. And although the Justice Department hasn't taken a whole state off
its watch list since the early 1980s (back when that hotbed of Jim Crow, Maine,
was taken off the list), New Hampshire will probably be let off the hook.
In 2009, the Supreme Court signaled to the Justice
Department that the Voting Rights Act was sorely in need of updating. In 1965,
the legislation was a radical but necessary response to entrenched,
institutionalized racism. Today, blacks vote at a higher rate than whites in
many Section 5 jurisdictions, and in others the shortfall is hardly due to
anything like Jim Crow. Latino rates are on the rise too.
Nine whole states are still covered; seven of them are
from the old Confederacy (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Texas and Virginia) plus Arizona and Alaska. But there are
jurisdictions in parts of Florida, California and the Confederate bastions of
the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan in New York City that must seek preclearance
from Uncle Sam as well.
"The evil that Section 5 is meant to address may no
longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance,"
the high court said in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 vs.
Holder.
Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the prospect of
getting a bailout -- i.e. getting out from under Section 5 -- is essentially a
"mirage." The Justice Department is eager to prove it's not, because
the court is hearing a new case this week, Shelby County vs. Holder, which the
court could use to throw out the whole regime.
Liberals are horrified by any talk of getting the feds
out of the election business, somewhat understandably. The passage of the
Voting Rights Act is a treasured chapter in American political history. It's
also not surprising that much of the argument for keeping it unreformed rests
on the emotional resonance of the civil rights movement half a century ago and the
alleged popularity of the law.
Nostalgia is a weak argument for any law, or so liberals
usually tell me. As Justice John Roberts wrote in 2009: "Past success
alone ... is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance
requirements." And, popularity shouldn't be an issue at all. The
popularity of slavery was one reason the court could hand down an opinion such
as Dred Scott.
President Obama (who is black and twice carried Virginia)
disagrees. If the preclearance requirement were stripped, he said, it
"would be hard for us to catch those things up front to make sure that
elections are done in an equitable way." That's true. But that logic
basically amounts to turning the Civil Rights Division into a permanent
department of pre-crime.
It's true Congress keeps renewing the law (the last vote
extends Section 5 until 2031), but one reason for that is that liberal
politicians, journalists and activists are quick to demagogue anyone in favor
of retiring Section 5 as being "anti-civil rights," in much the same
way any criticism of the Violence Against Women Act is instantly spun as
support for wife-beating. You may not have noticed, but the Democratic Party
has a vested interest in -- or at least a nasty habit of -- cynically using
race as cudgel against its opponents. It's no wonder Republicans have little
desire to take up the issue.
Whether the Supreme Court ends up throwing it all out or
simply goading the Justice Department to do the right thing, the court is
playing a useful role by forcing our system to acknowledge the fact of racial
progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment